Technology-Enabled Infrastructure Analysis of Its Economics, Public Benefits and Urban Experience

Home , 7 Subway Extension, BigBelly, Gothamist, Grand Concourse (Bronx), LinkNYC, Telephone booth

Technology-enabled Infrastructure Analysis of its Economics, Public Benefits and Urban Experience

SEA HOON KIM

Bachelor of Architecture Rice University, Houston TX

Submitted to the Department of Architecture and the Center for Real Estate in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Science in Architecture Studies and Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.

Signature of Author: ______Department of Architecture Center for Real Estate March 30, 2020

Certified by: ______James L. Wescoat Jr. Aga Khan Professor, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning Thesis Co-Supervisor

Certified by: ______David M. Geltner Professor of Real Estate Finance Thesis Co-Supervisor

Accepted by: ______Leslie K. Norford Chairman, Committee on Graduate Students, Department of Architecture

Accepted by: ______Dennis Frenchman Class of 1922 Professor of Urban Design and Planning Director, Center for Real Estate

Committee

James L. Wescoat Jr. Aga Khan Professor, Professor of Architecture Thesis Co-Supervisor

David M. Geltner Professor of Real Estate Finance Thesis Co-Supervisor

Technology-enabled Infrastructure Analysis of its Economics, Public Benefits and Urban Experience

Sea Hoon Kim

Submitted to the Department of Architecture and the Center for Real Estate on March 30, 2020 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Science in Architecture Studies and Master of Science in Real Estate Development

Abstract

This research proposes a conceptual and analytical framework for understanding technology- enabled infrastructure. Three strategies –creating new assets, layering uses and increasing utilization– are identified, which constitute technology-enabled infrastructure. The strategies are studied and analyzed through interviews and a case-based method. The cases discussed are Link NYC and BigBelly, both in contexts in New York City. These cases are evaluated using four lenses that are economic, social, environmental and user/urban experience. Variables are selected based on their pertinence to technology-enabled infrastructure, and they form the basis for understanding the intrinsic value of each case. These variables are public benefit, competition, physical, digital and social. Early findings indicate that creating and retaining ability to innovate throughout the lifespan of an infrastructure is a key element to technology-enabled infrastructure. To ensure a lasting success, the three strategies of infrastructure are recommended to be seen as a part of larger strategy, not as single or parallel strategies.

Thesis Co-Supervisor: James L. Wescoat Jr. Title: Aga Khan Professor, Professor of Architecture

Thesis Co-Supervisor: David M. Geltner Title: Professor of Real Estate Finance

Acknowledgements

My journey at MIT has not been a linear one to say the least. I found interest and passion in the unfamiliar and was not afraid to venture into uncharted territory. My biggest accomplishment in the past two and a half years undoubtedly was meeting many kind souls and brilliant minds. I had the great privilege of calling them my friends, teachers and advisors. They guided me, supported me and gave me courage to create my own path. Our journeys are set to diverge and take different turns, but I wish to be present through all of our highs and lows.

Writing this thesis, I often found myself feeling lost, like I was inside of a black hole. The mentors I met during my journey helped me understand where I stood and the direction I faced. Above all, they showed me what it is like to have an idea and pursue it assiduously. I am eager to carry on and practice what I have found at MIT, and I look forward to continuing our dialogues.

Thank you to each and every one of you.

Table of Contents

Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Preface 6 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 1.1 The Problem 9 1.2 The Opportunity 13 1.3 The Solution 18 1.4 Research Question 20 1.5 Intended Contribution 21

Chapter 2: Technology-enabled Infrastructure 22 2.1 Literature Review: What is Infrastructure? 22 2.2 Conceptual Framework 27 2.3 Methodology 32

Chapter 3: Link NYC 35 3.1 Life of an Infrastructure 36 3.2 Construct 41 3.3 Realization 44 3.4 Analysis 52

Chapter 4: BigBelly 64 4.1 BigBelly 1.0 66 4.2 Progress 71 4.3 BigBelly 2.0 77 4.4 Analysis 79

Chapter 5: Conclusions 87 5.1 Epilogue 91

Chapter 6: Sources 94 5

Preface

Before I start my thesis, I’d like to share a short personal story. The intention here is to have readers get used to what I observe, how I build on my observations and the way I tell my story. Most importantly, the story unfolds my journey to conceptualizing technology-enabled infrastructure and why I am excited about the topic.

I have an uncle and his family in the State of New York. Thanks to their hospitality, I was lucky to get to visit the Empire State and New York City throughout my youth while growing up in South Korea. In 2006, the vague sense of familiarity and fascination for the new and different led me to decide to school in the United States. I vividly remember the first time I took my family to Times Square after a multi-day tour of prospective high schools. My brother, then 10 years old, made a pilgrimage to the Toy R Us flagship store, we took photos in front of dazzling billboards and watched Lion King half asleep (Fig. 01).

Figure 01. Times Square in 2006. Taken by Author

Tourists visiting Times Square today can expect to have pretty much the same experience that I had 14 years ago: immersing into the excess and exuberance of flagship stores, staring at costumed characters, taking loads of photos and watching a show. Timelessness is the hallmark of Times Square. New Yorkers might despise it as the center of tourists, but it has been one of

6 the most popular, endearing landmarks in the world. As we share snippets of our experience over social media instantaneously evoking memories transcending time, we often don’t realize that what we experience might be the same, but how we experience Times Square has changed dramatically over time.

Back in 2006, it was a year before the first iPhone was launched. Google Maps did not exist and I highly doubt my LG Chocolate phone I brought from Korea had a map of New York City. How did we locate and find our way to Times Square? Uber or Citi Bike, or the concept of sharing transportation with strangers, did not exist then. Given how I found New York City Subway more confusing than disgusting yet, I am pretty sure we hailed a Yellow Cab. It is possible that I took couple of photos with my “smartphone” using 1 megapixel camera on a 240-by-320 pixel display, but I highly doubt the images traveled outside my device anytime soon after. Today, it is unimaginable living a day without all the highly personalized and accessible services that enable what we do to be so much more convenient.

In the summer of 2019, I lived in New York City for the first time and worked at New York City Economic Development Corporation. Walking down the streets of New York City everyday and working at an organization that is the designer of the city’s prosperous and to some extent equitable future allowed me to cultivate a deeper understanding of the changes technology is bringing to our lives beyond my personal level. At the same time, I realized there are social costs to the services that are often hard to justify as a society and an individual. I did regret ordering anything and everything from Amazon anytime I desired and with the fastest shipping available. I am sure the convenience I mindlessly enjoyed added to the larger problems of waste, air pollution and traffic – also, to my Uber travel times. Knowing the negative externalities, will I stop using Amazon and Uber? Perhaps not, or not yet.

One might ask, why not simply expand the physical capacity of our infrastructure to address the issues? In New York City, it took 8 years and $2.5 billion to build 7 Subway Extension that is 1.5 miles long. How about East Side Access? The 2-mile stretch of underground rail started construction in 2007, costing more than $12 billion and it might open in 2022. At this rate, I can speculate that my Amazon package will be delivered to my window via drone halfway through any capital projects city, state and federal governments push forward. Joking aside, we should consider both technological and traditional solutions to ensure that we continue to reap the

7 benefits of innovations in a sustainable way for the long-term. How do we solve the problems we are facing today if the traditional solutions for infrastructure are unavailable or unworkable? How can we use technology as medium to expand our conceptual toolbox in providing essential services? Maybe it is time to awaken our sleepy infrastructure to its full potential as technology- enabled infrastructure.

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter of my thesis illustrates my thought process in defining Technology-enabled Infrastructure. Section 1.1, The Problem, takes in a current phenomenon and establishes a relationship between technology and infrastructure. Section 1.2, The Opportunity, contextualizes the problem raised in the previous section in the larger discussion around infrastructure and essential services it provides. The section further identifies opportunities for using technology in delivering essential services. Section 1.3, The Solution, defines Technology-enabled Infrastructure and introduces strategies and cases. Section 1.4, Research Questions, presents three research questions and explains motivation behind them. Section 1.5, Intended Contribution, addresses target audiences and lays out intended contributions for those audiences.

1.1 The Problem

We are at the moment of transition from analog to digital in our physical environment. The transition hasn’t completely taken place yet, and the existing infrastructure is already overburdened by higher utilization and a growing demand coming from the digital world.

Let’s take a look at “rideshare” as an example. Rideshare is a subset of the sharing economy that can be defined as follows:

The sharing economy is an IT‐facilitated peer‐to‐peer model for commercial or non‐ commercial sharing underutilized goods or service capacity through an intermediary without transfer of ownership. (Schlagwein, Schoder, and Spindeldreher 2019)

Uber, synonymous with ridesharing today, first launched its services in San Francisco in 2011. It came out with a mobile app that allows users to hail rides without having to call a taxi company or go out on the streets. By 2013, the company introduced UberX that lets people drive their own personal vehicles to provide mobility service while offering competitive rates compared to taxis (Tsotsis 2012). The convenience of digital technology coupled with competitive pricing and the concept of increasing asset utilization got everyone excited (and scared some), and its success to date by any measure has been stratospheric. Uber completed 1 billion trips five years after the launch and hit 10 billion trips in 2018, just two and a half years after (“S-1” 2019) (Fig. 02).

Figure 02. Uber Ridership. Reprinted from “Form S-1 Registration Statement?” by Uber Technologies, Inc, 2019, sec.gov

The success of Uber didn’t come without a larger social cost. In San Francisco, traffic speed in downtown fell by 21 percent to 13.7 miles an hour in 2016, from 17.4 miles an hour in 2010 (Brown 2020). And, a study by University of Kentucky and San Francisco Transportation Authority found that transportation network companies, like Uber and Lyft, are the biggest contributor to the growing congestion in San Francisco (Erhardt et al. 2019). Such findings are counterintuitive to the utopian visions commonly promised and believed that the sharing economy will change consumer behavior to “access over ownership” (Rinnie 2018). We also hoped that the inverse relationship of ownership and asset utilization would create positive externalities like decreasing congestion and environmental benefits (Camp 2019) (Fig. 03). Travis Kalanick, founder and past CEO of Uber, once said in a tech conference “If every car in San Francisco was Ubered there would be no traffic” (Brown 2020).

Figure 03. Utopian Vision, Uber Ridership, Reality. Created by Author

As of 2020, we are not there yet. Car ownership in the US went up between 2010 and 2017 and the percentage of carless households dropped from 8.9 percent to 8.8 percent during the same period (“Census - Table Results” n.d.). At the same time, there are questions around asset utilization as many users prefer to hire private rides than sharing rides and there are studies claiming that rideshare platforms are pulling people away from other modes of transportations (Brown 2020). It might be too early to determine whether rideshare can contribute to overall efficiency and sustainability in mobility in the long run. But we know that analog and digital coexist in flux today and our infrastructure might be reaching a capacity point. What’s the point of rideshare if the trips end up taking the same time as walking or taking mass transit? How are we going to deal with the differential in the pace of analog fading out and digital flooding in?

The story of rideshare can be a disappointing one considering its social cost today. But we do have the slightest hope that the “ride-hailing” companies today will become rideshare platforms in the future (Campbell 2015). It is worth noting that some of other services offered by the digital world do not come with the same utopian vision (like that of sharing economy) and they are mounting significant social costs. E-commerce offers us convenience we are addicted to: lower price, limitless options, faster and easier buying, 24/7 availability and more. Our beloved e- commerce has been posting double-digit annual sales growth in the past decade (U.S. Census Bureau News 2019) and this sector is in fierce competition with incumbent brick and mortar and online newcomers. Led by Amazon, e-commerce players see faster delivery (not necessarily the most efficient and sustainable) as the frontier of competition (Stout 2013) and our infrastructure is feeling the pain. More than 1.5 million packages are delivered daily in New York City, up from 1.1 million in 2009 (Haag and Hu 2019) (Fig. 04). During the same period, New York City

11 hasn’t been adding sufficient infrastructure like more loading zones and last-mile warehouses to keep up with the exploding demand (Haag and Hu 2019).

Figure 04. Boxes overwhelming infrastructure. Reprinted from “1.5 Million Packages a Day: The Internet Brings Chaos to N.Y. Streets” by Haag and Hu, 2019, nytimes.com

Like it or not, we are embracing the transition to the digital world in more than one way. We are far too comfortable with the personalized services digital technology enables (Gonsalvez 2017) and companies are competing fiercely to capture a piece of a growing pie at any cost. As consumers, it is often hard to get the full picture of social costs associated with the changing standard of living. Most of all, we don’t understand the full impact that our two clicks on Amazon.com have on the physical environment for it to deliver an Alexa TV remote to your home in two days.

1.2 The Opportunity

In the previous section, I painted a slightly dystopian picture of digital technology inadvertently overwhelming physical infrastructure and resulting in negative externalities. I understand the grim outlook shared by many, given the long standing issues around the funding gap and illusive project delivery timeline commonly associated with infrastructure (Preston 2020). It certainly feels like consumer behavior is changing much faster than how we are used to plan and build infrastructure (Fig. 05). However, I do believe that there is an untapped opportunity in infrastructure where we actively use digital and physical technology to provide essential services to meet our standard of living.

Figure 05. Times it takes to respond to changing customer behavior. Created by Author

In answering questions on why and how we should use technology in infrastructure, we need to take a step back and think about what essential services are in our society today. World Bank defines infrastructure as:

….delivering essential services-water supply, sanitation, energy, roads, and information communications technology-that people need to maintain a basic standard of living. (World Bank 2013)

The essential services, from the perspective of economic development, serve as building blocks of development that lead to improvement in health, access to education and economic opportunities. In the past decade, additional questions were raised on how we are providing the services and whether it is done in environmentally responsible and equitable ways. In 2015, United Nations General Assembly set out Sustainable Development Goals providing a renewed, three dimensional framework – economic, social and environmental – on how we evaluate infrastructure and the services it provides (United Nations n.d.) (Fig. 06).

Figure 06. Sustainable Development Goals projected onto United Nations Headquarters. Reprinted from “All eyes on UN as world body prepares to adopt new Sustainable Development Goals” by U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d., new.un.org

For example, we need power to go about our day. In the US, an average citizen in 1970 consumed 331 million British thermal units (BTU) of energy (the first time per capita energy consumption passed 300 million BTUs) (U.S. Energy Information Administration n.d.) and as long as power is readily available and reliable, we were happy (Fig. 07). In 2018, the same person uses a little less energy (309 million BTUs), but sources a lot more from renewables, about 7.5 quadrillion BTUs more (U.S. Energy Information Administration n.d.) (Fig. 08). The growth in renewable energy kicked off in the late 2000s with increasing public awareness of climate change (Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007) and introduction of state and federal government requirements and incentives to use renewable energy (U.S. Energy

Information Administration n.d.). In 2019, renewables surpassed coal in monthly electricity generation providing 23 percent of total electricity generation (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2019) and renewables’ remarkable growth continues to be fueled by technological innovations that have lowered costs and increased capacity factors (Deloitte 2020). The demand curve for power has been pretty flat, but there has been a significant growth within the sector as we care more about our environment and new technologies are making cleaner alternatives more competitive.

Figure 07. U.S. primary energy consumption by major sources. Reprinted from “U.S. energy facts explained” by U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d., eia.gov

Figure 08. U.S. annual renewable generation. Reprinted from “U.S. renewable electricity generation has doubled since 2008” by U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019, eia.gov

How about internet access, the foundation of the digital world? In this case, growth is hard to miss: the worldwide total monthly mobile data traffic is growing at 42 percent compound annual growth rate heavily driven by growing customer appetite for video, gaming, live streaming and social media (“Ericsson Mobility Report November 2017,” 2017). Blinded by growth stories and expansion of services, many of us fail to realize the widening digital divide even in one of the most tech savvy cities like New York City: 29 percent of all New York City households do not have broadband internet access (“Census and The City: Overcoming NYC’s Digital Divide,” 2019). New York City recognizes internet access as “the fourth utility of the modern age” (New York City Comptroller 2014) and it is taking a multipronged approach to make the essential service more equitable and to foster long-term economic development (Fig. 09). For example, it started to provide free public Wi-Fi through a franchise agreement with a private consortium at no cost to the city. At the same time, it is taking a proactive steps for a rollout of 5G and by incorporating it in its Internet Master Plan (City of New York 2020) and facilitating small cells installations on city-owned structures (Jones 2020)1. At national level, the digital divide between urban and rural is a challenge as well as an opportunity. In rural America, more than half of all Americans lack access to service meeting the federal benchmark,2 and yet mobile network operators are slow to invest due to high costs and low demand (Bock 2018). In urban America, growth in network traffic density is concentrated in major cities and more specifically in denser locations within cities that are costlier to increase network capacity (Grijpink 2018). The differential in the demand and cost creates opportunities for new technologies and approaches to address the needs namely creating a dense constellation of low earth orbit satellites capable of providing lower-cost internet in remote locations (Mann 2020) (Fig. 10).

1 US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates that we need 800,000 new small cell sites by 2025 while recognizing the challenge that the approval process can take more than two years (Federal Communications Commission 2018) 2 FCC broadband benchmark stands at 25 megabits per second (Mbps) for downloads and 3 Mbps for uploads (Federal Communications Commission 2015)

Figure 09. Network traffic density growth projection. Reprinted from “The road to 5G: The inevitable growth of infrastructure cost” by McKinsey & Company, 2018, mckinsey.com

Figure 10. Opportunities in rural and urban America. Created by Author

Broadening the definition of essential services expands the universe of infrastructure. Coupled with the overburdening of existing infrastructure driven by digital services, one may be hopeless in thinking about meeting all the needs. However, the challenges are welcomed as opportunities, particularly with developments of applicable digital technologies, are taking a critical role in coming up with innovative solutions. Concurrently, public agencies have grown to rely more on private sector expertise in providing essential services, opening doors for more investments and experimentation (HR&A 2017).

1.3 The Solution

The previous sections offered some early indications and examples on how we can leverage technology to meet challenges and opportunities. My thesis identifies three ways it can be done: creating new assets, layering uses and increasing utilization. Creating new assets is about building new infrastructures. Layering uses leverages existing infrastructures to provide other essential services. Increasing utilization uses technology to increase utilization of existing infrastructures. The three strategies constitute Technology-enabled Infrastructure that actively uses technology – digital and physical – to deliver essential services we need today and tomorrow (Fig. 11, 12).

As a case study research, the three strategies are explained and analyzed through cases. Link NYC is the case for creating new assets. It is a network of kiosks that provides free public Wi-Fi in New York City. BigBelly is an example for layering uses. It is a smart, solar-powered waste compactor that can reduce cost in solid waste management. Both Link NYC and BigBelly exist in New York City and they are chosen in part to enable comparative analysis (Fig. 13). Moments within the two cases are used for increasing utilization. A detailed note on case selection and case study follows in subsequent chapters.

Figure 11. What is Technology-enabled Infrastructure? Created by Author

Figure 12. Three Strategies. Created by Author

Figure 13. Link NYC and BigBelly in Times Square. Created by Author

1.4 Research Questions

There are a lot of unknowns (and doubts) around technology-enabled infrastructure. Without having all the possible cases on the table, successes and failures, it can be daunting for anyone or any organization to come up with a strategy for it. My thesis examines early indications and examples that may shine a light on the right path forward.

The first research question asks:

• How can we approach using technology in infrastructure to provide essential services?

The second research question aims to reveal the relationship between key characteristics of technology-enabled infrastructure and its consequences. Technology-enabled infrastructure provides essential services and will have social and environmental ramifications. At the same time, it possesses physicality that unmistakably will have impact on user experience. The cases discussed here are located in New York City and the analyses will focus on urban experience.

• What are the key characteristics of technology-enabled infrastructure and its impact on society, environment and user experience?

The third research question brings everything together. Technology-enabled infrastructure provides essential services and necessitates a meeting of the minds between parties involved (in many cases between a private entity and a public agency). Gaining a deep understanding of their interests and priorities is the first step and building a constructive relationship, both working and contractual, to ensure successful delivery of the services is the ultimate challenge. Negotiating a deal is hard enough, but it becomes infinitely muddier if what we are negotiating for is something novel.

• How can we best align the interests of the private sector, public agencies and users in building technology-enabled infrastructure?

The research questions serve as guiding principles for my thesis. The questions remind me where we stand in the development of technology-enabled infrastructure and encourage me to prioritize analyses on the areas most relevant for dialogues today.

1.5 Intended Contribution

My thesis is not about a specific technology or a single case. It aims to offer early insights on what the future of infrastructure can look like and suggests a framework to understand and evaluate it. Much of the writing is in plain language to serve a broad audience and relies on narrative to share my own experience in conceptualizing technology-enabled infrastructure. While my thesis primarily draws on tools from real estate and urbanism, the core audiences are private entities and public agencies. For private entities, primarily operators and investors, the framework will help in understanding the true value of technology-enabled infrastructure and coming up with sound underwriting principles. For public agencies, the cases can help in taking a measured (yet optimistic) approach to technology-enabled infrastructure while thinking about how to strike a delicate balance between parties involved and sustained success of essential services.

Chapter 2: Technology-enabled Infrastructure

This chapter places my thesis within a larger body of work encompassing infrastructure and technology. Section 2.1, Literature Review, gathers and analyzes literature from academia and practice on infrastructure. It incorporates ideas from urban theory and finance to form a view on technology-enabled infrastructure. Section 2.2, Conceptual Framework, lays out a roadmap for developing a framework to understand and evaluate technology-enabled infrastructure. Section 2.3, Methodology, explains the research method and tools used and rationalizes some of decisions made.

2.1 Literature Review

In the previous chapter, I introduced a definition of infrastructure by the World Bank and told a story of its morphology that forms an undertone for conceptualizing technology-enabled infrastructure. In this section, I first provide a quick overview of some multifaceted and fluid understandings of infrastructure. Then, I highlight perspectives from finance and urban theory to make a case for technology-enabled infrastructure.

Merriam-Webster, one of the most widely used dictionaries, defines infrastructure as:

the system of public works of a country, state, or region also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity. (Merriam-Webster n.d.)

The basic definition it offers is a close adaptation from United Nations’ Handbook on Geographic Information Systems and Digital Mapping:

…the system of public works in a country, state or region, including roads, utility lines and public buildings. (United Nations 2000)

Such definitions emphasize the public nature of infrastructure in its purpose and delivery. However, there is an argument to widen the definition as infrastructure covering “services essential to society” (Inderst 2010). The widened definition incorporates the role of private sector and broader universe of services.

Georg Inderst, in Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure, further groups infrastructure according to their purpose from an investment context and shares common financial characteristics. He identifies two large buckets in infrastructure: economic and social. Economic infrastructure like transport, utilities and communication directly plays a role in our economic activities, whereas social infrastructure like schools and hospitals indirectly support economic systems. He observes limited competition as a common value and shares the following positive financial characteristics (Inderst 2010):

• Long-term, stable cash flows • Good inflation hedge • Low sensitivity to swings in the economy and markets • Low correlation of returns with other asset classes • Relatively low default rates • Sustainability Frédéric Blanc-Brude, in Towards Efficient Benchmarks for Infrastructure Equity Investments, bifurcates physical and contractual in isolating value for an infrastructure from a financial economics perspective. He argues that infrastructure equity investments are relationship-specific and they do not have “intrinsic value” typical of real assets (Brude 2013). More than physical characteristics, contractual and regulatory arrangements explicate cash flow as well as risk management.

Andrew Claerhout, in Infrastructure’s Future Looks a Lot Like Private Equity, advocates for a more active form of investment in infrastructure and points out five market forces behind structural change: funding gap in infrastructure, strong investor demand, technology as innovative and disruptive force, changing customer behavior and regulatory environment contribute to broadening and deepening of infrastructure investing universe (Claerhout et al., 2018). These market forces are both risks and opportunities for old and new investments and he argues for active management, value-add approach to provide adequate risk-adjusted returns.

The concept of parsing the lifespan of infrastructure is a novel one in finance. From a perspective of urban theory, some advocate for deeper understanding of infrastructure through observations over time on its potentiality, capacity, ability or tendency (Easterling, 2011). Keller Easterling observes that our built environment has become “infrastructural,” more active than static, by receiving transportation, communication and utility networks (Easterling 2012). The transition to

“active forms,” she describes is an incremental process requiring multiple adjustments and authors. Her view of infrastructure and its development as active and accretive allows us to conceptualize value-add opportunities in new ways.

Furthermore, there is evidence of convergence between cyber infrastructure and physical infrastructure from an engineering perspective. The development of cyber infrastructure, the internet and the web that enable transfer of data, has been remarkable and led us to the information age. However, cyber infrastructure had limited interaction with physical infrastructure as it required human assistance as intermediary (Prabhu 2013). Nagabhushana Prabhu posits that once cyber infrastructure has capability to sense the physical objects and to actuate objects we will end up in an integrated world, or a “primitive globally distributed organism”.

While it will take some time for such a radical transformation to take place, physical infrastructure has been increasingly “technology-enabled” to benefit from the characteristics of digital technology. Catherine Tucker in Digital Economics emphasizes reduction in economic costs associated with digital economic activity: lower search costs, zero replication costs, cost of transporting information, tracking costs and verification costs (Goldfarb, Tucker, and National Bureau of Economic Research 2017). Physical infrastructure that incorporates digital technology can leverage such characteristics and bring values beyond its physical confines (Fig. 14).

Figure 14. OMNY, a new fare system in New York City, in use. Reprinted from “Subway Swipe? Soon, Tap to Pay” by Paybarah, 2019, nytimes.com

At one point, it might be quite impossible to fully understand our human experience in our technological society from both philosophical and practical points of view. As technology get more complex and sophisticated, we tend to focus more on inputs and outputs than the inner workings of technology itself, or as Bruno Latour describes the "black box," and the black box is becoming increasingly incomprehensible (Latour 1999). In the recent years, the "inputs" and "outputs" are questioned and unappreciated, and we are taking more of a social constructivist view demanding a more comprehensive account of the black boxes (Winner 1993).

Figure 15. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, at a Senate hearing. Reprinted from “As Facebook Raised a Privacy Wall, It Carved an Opening for Tech Giants” by Dance, 2018, nytimes.com

Growing interest in black boxes is expressed by multiple constituents and across media. Individuals, empowered by new outlets like social media, react and protest while publishers share their own views. Such acts successfully shed light on the boxes themselves while it is unclear how constructive criticisms are or how effective we are in unfolding the boxes (Fig. 15).

We find that the dialogues are more progressive when black boxes are in part or whole manifested in the physical world and their existences are contingent upon approval processes. As an example, Sidewalk Labs proposed an independent trust that will oversee collection or use of urban data in its Quayside development3. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

3 Sidewalk Labs is a subsidiary of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, and it is now developing a smart city along Toronto’s waterfront after winning a Request for Proposal in 2017 (Lindzon 2019).

25 expressed concern over the lack of independent public oversight among other things, but welcomed the proposal addressing digital governance as a step towards updating its privacy laws (Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario 2019) (Fig. 16).

Figure 16. Outline for Urban Data Trust. Reprinted from “Master Innovation and Development Plan” by Sidewalk Labs, sidewalktoronto.ca

In this section, I exhibit different and evolving points of views on infrastructure. It is evident that interests in this space is growing from finance, urban and civic perspectives. However, we do not have a set definition or framework to facilitate a conversation crosscutting different interests. My thesis illustrates different interests through the cases and proposes a framework that can move the conversation forward.

2.2 Conceptual Framework

As evidenced in the literature review, technology-enabled infrastructure is a nascent concept. The following conceptual framework presents steps I designed to understand technology-enabled infrastructure and to create an analytical framework.

I started by identifying three strategies that constitute technology-enabled infrastructure: creating new assets, layering uses and increasing utilization. The typology was created through my personal observation and tested using existing ideas and examples. In order to cultivate deeper understanding of the strategies, I introduce cases specific to each strategy. Here I focus on two of the three strategies -creating new assets and layering uses- with their respective cases of Link NYC and BigBelly where their scales and sites allow for in-depth comparative analysis. I explain increasing utilization through vignettes of cases pertaining to a specific industry. The following steps are taken to crystalize the understanding of three strategies and create a single framework applicable to all.

First, I evaluate the cases through the lenses of economics, environmental, social and user experience (Fig. 17). The criteria were selected to reflect broadening definition of infrastructure and essential services as noted in Chapter 1. Second, I identify variables crucial in understanding intrinsic value of technology-enabled infrastructure. The variables are public benefit, competition, physical, digital and social. Third, I conduct comparative analysis between the cases to validate and fine-tune the framework (Fig. 18, 19).

Rationale for case selection and definitions for variables are presented in the following sections.

Figure 17. Case Evaluation. Created by Author

Figure 18. Evaluation and Variables. Created by Author

Figure 19. Conceptual Framework. Created by Author

Variables are described and defined as follows:

Public Benefit

We understand that infrastructure provides essential public (as well as private) services. The concept of essential is not absolute, and there is a growing spectrum of essential services. It is important to understand where an infrastructure lies within the spectrum to gauge is true value to society.

Competition

As definition of essential services broadens and their demands grow, we are exploring different options to meet the demands in the most cost-effective and timely manner. As a result, there are more private capital and companies competing in the space today. Public agency and technology play important role in controlling and influencing competitiveness.

Physical

Mark Twain, an American writer and humorist, famously said, “Buy land, they’re not making it anymore.” The value of owning something finite is pertinent to infrastructure as much as in real estate. However, the value of physicality – per location and form - is never the same and its growth potential is also different. In my analysis, I distinguish the difference between single asset and a network. As well as factors that may impact value-add potential like proximity to and interaction with users.

Digital

It is hard to undertake a physical intervention to existing infrastructure. Not only it can be very costly, the processes can be burdensome. On the other side, the digital side of infrastructure can be improved cheaply and more frequently (following to the rule of digital economics) and new ideas and strategies can emerge over time to add more value to infrastructure.

Social

Changing social climate can make or break any infrastructure project. Technology-enabled infrastructure is also subject to changing social climate and its exposure might be broader with its use of digital technologies. The Social variable is therefore more about social risk whereas the Social evaluation concerns social impacts. 31

2.3 Methodology

My thesis starts off by identifying three strategies, then aggregating them under the concept of technology-enabled infrastructure and finally goes deeper into analysis of the strategies through cases. My research adapts a case-based method, and it is organized as follows: Chapter 1, Introduction, presents the framework for technology-enabled infrastructure based on my observation. Chapter 2, Technology-enabled Infrastructure, conceptualizes technology-enabled infrastructure alongside contemporary literature and details my methodology. Chapter 3, Link NYC, and Chapter 4, BigBelly, present in-depth analyses of the cases to reveal their characteristics as strategies and technology-enabled infrastructure. Chapter 5, Conclusions, shares key findings from the case analyses and offers additional insights through comparative analysis between the cases. The chapter concludes with recommendations for core audiences identified in Section 1.5.

The seed for my research on technology-enabled infrastructure was sown in the summer of 2019 when I was living in New York City and working at New York City Economic Development Corporation. The experience allowed to keep my finger on the pulse of dynamism the city exerts and to identify the topic and cases in the City. I took my preliminary framework and analysis of the cases and performed initial due diligence searching for literature and conducting informal interviews. I could not find academic literature directly addressing technology-enabled infrastructure. However, I was able to find references for “technology-enabled” as a concept across disciplines through citation tracking and adopted some of their approaches. Informal interviews with investors, operators and public agencies supported my hypothesis and validated my take on the cases. I realized I found an opportunity to formalize a nascent concept and to suggest a framework for a deeper understanding and its application.

As my conviction grew, I’ve decided on a case-based method for my research. The method allows me to share in-depth analysis of specific cases that are representative of the identified strategies and the overarching concept. The method is appropriate at this time when the concept is not mature yet and information is not widely available. Below, I share my rationale for case selection as well as structure for the interviews.

Case Selection

The cases presented in my thesis reveal key characteristics unique to technology-enabled infrastructure and respective strategies. Furthermore, each case comes with robust depiction and analysis on relevant background information that directly and indirectly influenced inception and development of the infrastructure. I hypothesize that economic, social and political backdrop is as important as technological innovation for the success of a technology-enabled infrastructure. As a final step, I plan to conduct a comparative analysis between the cases. Therefore, I choose cases according to the following criteria:

• Is it a clear example as technology-enabled infrastructure? • Is it a clear example as one of three strategies identified? • Is there enough information publicly available? • Is it feasible to get additional information from other sources? • Do cases share geographic similarities to facilitate a comparative analysis? • Do cases share sectoral similarities to facilitate a comparative analysis? Interviews

Interviews as a tool are an integral part of my research. The cases I discuss are privately-owned assets and the owners are private companies. Lack of information and misinformation are common for such assets and interviews with the owners and operators are invaluable. At the same time, technology-enabled infrastructure being infrastructure and providing essential services, the cases mostly involve public agencies as counterparties. Interviews with public agencies tell the story from the other side and represent an agency for public interest. Along with media coverage, these interviews provide a three-dimensional view of technology-enabled infrastructure.

The interviews are semi-structured. I prepared an interview guide for every interview that includes a summary of my research and a list of questions and topics to discuss. It is composed of a set of common questions I ask every interviewee and specific questions designed for each interviewee. Through the questions I touch upon the evaluative framework and variables introduced in the previous section. I generally follow the guide, but the structure is intentional in accommodating any detour. I recognize the topic may be far beyond the confines of my

observation and imagination and that there is value in allowing interviewees to fully express their view and share any relevant information.

Interviewee Profiles

Investors Sovereign Wealth Fund Pension Fund Asset Manager Private Equity Operators Real Estate Investment Trust Smart City Technology Company Smart Waste Management Company Public Agencies New York City Economic Development Corporation New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications NYC Mayor's Office

Sample Interview Questions

• Do you think technology is changing how we approach infrastructure? • How do you think technology is changing how we approach infrastructure? • How would you conduct a cost-benefit analysis from your perspective? • How do you underwrite opportunities and challenges associated with technology in approaching infrastructure? • What are the key risks and value drivers? • How do you think about externalities –economic, social, environmental and user experience- associated with technology-enabled infrastructure? This chapter has provided the context and structural framework of my thesis in relation to the fields of urbanism and real estate. At the same time, it answers the questions readers might have on how I am approaching the subject. In the two following chapters, I present two cases -Link NYC and BigBelly- to illustrate three strategies -creating new assets, layering uses and increasing utilization- and analyze them using the conceptual framework.

Chapter 3: Link NYC

Chapter 3, Link NYC, marks the beginning of our journey delving into the cases of technology- enabled infrastructure. I open the cases with Link NYC as an example of creating new assets. Section 3.1, Life of an Infrastructure, introduces the concept of creating new assets portraying the rise and death of an infrastructure. Furthermore, it portrays the story of how Link NYC came about. Section 3.2, Construct, highlights key provisions in the Link NYC franchise agreement. Section 3.3, Realization, reflects on the accomplishment and challenges of Link NYC as of today. Section 3.4, Analysis, evaluates Link NYC and forms a view on it based on variables defined in Chapter 2.

When we think about infrastructure, it is easy to limit ourselves to traditional assets like toll roads and bridges. This is mainly because they are the most visible ones, unless one lives close to other infrastructure assets like a nuclear plant. We understand that as our essential needs get more complex and we are becoming more conscious of how our needs are met, new infrastructure assets often emerge. For example, data centers are relatively novel assets that grew with the desire for internet access. Wind and solar as renewable energy sources really took off in the mid-2000s (Ritchie and Roser 2017). Elon Musk’s SpaceX is launching up to 12,000 satellites to form a megaconstellation to serve people without reliable internet access (Young 2020). Meanwhile, there is a new, highly visible infrastructure asset on the streets of New York City that provides free public Wi-Fi, Link NYC.

3.1 Life of an Infrastructure

Figure 20. Woman using a pay phone circa 1930s. Reprinted from “Now You Know: Where was the First Public Telephone Booth?” by Merrill Fabry, 2016, Time.com

Before I discuss the origin of Link NYC, it is worth thinking about the recent demise of an old infrastructure asset, payphones. The telephone was invented in 1887, and one of the first commercial telephone exchanges was set up in Connecticut a year later (Fig. 20). However, it was not until the early 1910s that payphones were mass-produced and by the mid-1910s there were around 25,000 payphones in New York City (Fabry 2016). Nationally, the number of payphones peaked in the mid-1990s with 2.6 million, but since declined as mobile phone ownership picked up (Reizman 2017). AT&T and Verizon exited the market in 2007 (the first iPhone was released that year) and 2011 respectively. In New York City, the number dropped from 21,824 in 2008 to 11,249 in 2013 (DeCambre 2013). Today local newspapers and magazines are writing obituaries for what was once essential infrastructure for New Yorkers (Fig. 21).

Figure 21. Officials replacing phone booths. Reprinted from “And Then There Were Four: Phone Booths Saved on Upper West Side Sidewalks” by Corey Kilgannon, 2016, nytimes.com

The important lessons here are obviously the impermanence of infrastructure as an asset and the significance of disruption risk. But, there is a silver lining – advertising revenue from payphones actually went up from $14.1 million in 2008 to $16.6 million in 2013 (DeCambre 2013). Further, the observed growth in “Out-of-Home” advertising enabled the underwriting for Link NYC.

In 2012, the Bloomberg administration noticed two things: the franchise agreements for payphones would be expiring in late 2014 and there was an increasing demand for public internet access (Neubauer 2012). So, it released a Request for Information (RFI) to gather ideas and feedback on the long-term future of the asset and started a pilot program to provide public Wi-Fi from payphone installations. Underscoring the growing digital divide in the city, Chief Information and Innovation Officer Merchant said:

Expanding public access to broadband technology across the five boroughs, be it wired or wireless, is at the heart of the Bloomberg Administration’s efforts to promote greater digital inclusion for New Yorkers. (“Press Release” 2012).

The administration sought an opportunity to meet the needs of today by utilizing the footprint of infrastructure from the past. This approach was viable at the time when Smart Cities as a concept was in fashion and Mayor Bloomberg was not shy about leveraging technology to solve big problems. One of the major initiatives was NYC Urban Technology Innovation Center in partnership with universities to promote the development and commercialization of green building technologies (“Mayor Bloomberg” 2011).

Along with the RFI and the pilot, Reinvent Payphones Design Challenge was hosted by NYC’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) in early 2013. There were more than 125 submissions and six finalists were selected. One of the finalists was NYC I/O: The Responsive City by Control Group, a technology company, and Titan, an outdoor advertising company, and their partnership survived over time and played an important role in the rollout of Link NYC (Fig. 22).

Figure 22. Rendered image from NYFi, one of the finalists. Reprinted from “NYC Announces 'Reinvent Payphones' Design Challenge Winners”, 2013, govtech.com

In the early 2014, Mayor Bill de Blasio started his tenure and decided to move forward with the initiative based on the broad-based feedback the city received. In May, DoITT issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and laid out its expectations. Mayor Bill de Blasio highlighted:

"By using a historic part of New York’s street fabric, we can significantly enhance public availability of increasingly-vital broadband access, invite new and innovative digital

services, and increase revenue to the city—all at absolutely no cost to taxpayers" (City of New York 2014)

And, the RFP requires responses to meet the following criteria:

• Free 24/7 WiFi service with an 85-foot minimum radius • Phone service with the ability to make free 911 and 311 calls • Funding for the new structures would primarily come from digital advertising • Minimum of $17.5 million in guaranteed annual revenue • Install, operate and maintain up to 10,000 devices • Equitably distributed over the five boroughs within four years (City of New York 2014) Some of the key evaluation metrics were functional efficiency, aesthetics, security, durability, adaptability to varied city environments, and disability accommodation. Other considerations included ease of future upgrades, environmental and resiliency measures to ensure the new infrastructure can last longer and protect itself from disruption risk (Cassano and Cassano 2014).

The framework for a franchise suggested by the RFP represents a significant development from the initial ideation. It defines the primary revenue model as digital advertising and stipulates that there will be no public funding available for the project. It further outlines public benefits, primarily such as free internet access, phone services and revenue to the city and secondarily, other social infrastructure like free 911 and 311 calls and disseminating emergency notifications and information. On the private side, it allows for a city-wide single bidder and minimum 12- year contract.

In November 2014, the Mayor’s office announced the winning bid called Link NYC by CityBridge (Aguilar 2014) (Fig. 23, 24). CityBridge is a partnership between Intersection (a merger between Titan and Control Group with Sidewalk Labs, an Alphabet subsidiary, as a lead investor), CIVIQ Smartscapes, and Qualcomm (Lapowsky 2015). The partnership proposed the “Links”, 9.5-foot towers with built-in Android tablets with two large screens on each device. Expected cost stood at $200 million and the franchise was estimated to generate $500 million revenue for the city over 12 years.

Figure 23. Links. Reprinted from “New York City unveils the pay phone of the future—and it does a whole lot more than make phone calls”, 2014, washingtonpost.com

Figure 24. Timeline. Created by Author

3.2 Construct

In December 2014, CityBridge was granted a non-exclusive Public Communications Structure franchise. It is structured as an initial term of twelve years and a three-year extension option at DoITT Commissioner’s discretion. The agreement gives the right and consent to design, operate, repair, maintain, upgrade, remove and replace existing payphones and Links. The ownership of the structures, both payphones and Links, belong to CityBridge. The franchise agreement is non- exclusive, meaning the city can grant a similar franchise to other parties without CityBridge’s consent. Concerning data rights, CityBridge will not disclose “Personally Identifiable Information”, any information that can identify a person including name, address, phone number, email address and more, to anyone or under any circumstances except required by law enforcement. At the same time, it will not collect Personally Identifiable Information except to the extent necessary for technical management; such technical information includes unique identifiers, location information, IP addresses or MAC addresses.

Additionally, CityBridge is obliged to provide free or pay telephone service and provide free public Wi-Fi. And, it is responsible for virtually all costs for the build-out and operation. On the other hand, CityBridge has to pay a Franchise Fee each year in an amount equal to greater of fifty percent of Gross Revenues or the Minimum Annual Guarantee payment. In Year Eight, there is a step up for Gross Revenues derived from Advertising to fifty-five percent while non- advertising remains as fifty percent (Fig. 25).

Figure 25. Minimum Annual Guarantee Table. Franchise Agreement LinkNYC Franchises, nyc.gov

In terms of installation, CityBridge promises to construct and install no less than 6,000 advertising structures and no less than 1,500 non-advertising structures (Fig. 26). Links shall be distributed across the five boroughs. A table from the agreement dictates distribution, and a schedule lays out per borough rollout per year (Fig. 27).

Figure 26. Advertising and Non-advertising Structures. Exhibit 5 LinkNYC Franchises, nyc.gov

Figure 27. Distribution Table. Attachment SRV LinkNYC Franchises, nyc.gov

The locations for Links are tied to existing payphones and should not be within fifty linear feet of another structure and comply with Siting Criteria (Fig. 28).

Clear Path allow a minimum of 8 feet or one half of the sidewalk, whichever is greater

Sight Lines shall not interfere with pedestrian or motorist sight lines necessary for traffic safety

Minimum Distance 15’ of an outdoor or elevated subway entrance Requirements 15’ of street furniture with advertisement panel

15’ radius of a fire hydrant

15’ of an enclosed sidewalk café

5’ of standpipe or sprinkler connection, siamese connection, etc.

10’ of a driveway

Vaults submit certification from an engineer

Electrical Sources as close as possible to the source of electricity

Landmark and Historic Districts subject to the rules of the Landmarks Preservation Commission

Figure 28. Siting Criteria. Exhibit 4 LinkNYC Franchises, nyc.gov

Advertising on Links is allowed only in some locations. Commercial and manufacturing zoning districts are suitable for advertising structures. Non-digital and static digital advertising are permitted anywhere advertising is allowed except in historic districts or near landmarks. Each year, New York City Program Advertising can use the equivalent of 5 percent of the total value of advertising space.

In terms of design, CityBridge needs to get approval from the Art Commission and may have to change its design from its submission. The agreement defines the envelope as advertising structure, 114” in height and 11” by 35” in dimension, and non-advertising structure, 122.9” in height and 11” by 16” in dimension. Also, the advertising display panel has limits of 1,539 square inches and two displays per device.

3.3 Realization

In 2016, the first batch of Links came online and was introduced to the public with a message, “Hello, World!” It was a proud moment for Mayor Bill De Blasio and his administration, and New York City newspapers and magazines welcomed the unfamiliar, sleek new infrastructure with feelings of both anxiety and excitement (Fig. 29). While New Yorkers were welcoming the Links in the most New York way possible, the service each Link offered exceeded expectations. It offered free public Wi-Fi, free domestic calls, two USB charging ports, a tablet for internet access and a red 911 button. The public Wi-Fi is truly “free”: users do not have to watch videos or accept pop-up ads, and “gigabit Wi-Fi” provides connectivity far exceeding the average of American home internet connection, tested up to download and upload speeds at 300 Mbps compared to 31 Mbps at home (Hardawar 2016).

Figure 29. Mayor Bill de Blasio holding a press conference next to a Link. Reprinted from “Are New York’s Free LinkNYC Internet Kiosks Tracking Your Movement?”, 2018, theintercept.com

Links’ usage grew as New Yorkers embraced the new infrastructure and more Links were installed (Fig. 30). In September 2018, Links hit significant milestones of 1 billion sessions, 5 million users and 500,000 phone calls a month (Wiggers 2018). In the first quarter of the year, users placed over 9,000 911 calls and used the tablet over 17,000 times for 311 function and 15,700 times for Aunt Bertha application4.

4 Aunt Bertha is a free online platform facilitating search and application for social services. (“Need Help? Aunt Bertha” 2014)

Figure 30. Mayor Bill de Blasio holding a press conference next to a Link. Reprinted from “Are New York’s Free LinkNYC Internet Kiosks Tracking Your Movement?”, 2018, theintercept.com

In terms of rollout, CityBridge faced some installation delays at the beginning, which were in part caused by lawsuits and issues with communities. Audit reports from the Office of the Comptroller show that in June 2018 and January 2019 CityBridge was keeping up with the rollout schedule. However, the January 2019 phase II schedule CityBridge was beholden to was an amendment from the original that was approved in May 2018. According to the amendment, the buildout period was extended for an additional two years and the minimum number of Links required was adjusted (Office of the Comptroller 2019) (Fig. 31, 32).

Figure 31. Breakdown of Phase 1 and Phase II Rollout. Reprinted from Letter Audit Reports, 2018 and 2019, comptroller.nyc.gov

Figure 32. Link NYC Locations, link.nyc

Links primarily offer static digital advertising. The franchise agreement dictates its characteristics such as how long each fixed image must be displayed and fade-in and fade-out time. Slow motion digital, other media and new technologies may be possible, but require approval from the DoITT Commissioner. Links’ commercial success is primarily dependent on advertising revenue. From the beginning, there was a thesis for substantial growth in Out-of- Home advertising and sheer scale of the rollout (projected up to 10,000 links). And there was a hope for more innovative advertising campaign leveraging location information and other data sources. In one example, a campaign with MillerCoors, a beer brewing company, uses real time subway information from MTA to drive consumers to nearby locations to buy MillerCoors products in case of train delays – “Your Commute Can Wait.” Another campaign with Streeteasy, an online real estate market place, shows Links’ capacity to launch a geo-targeted, dynamic campaign that presented apartment listings in neighborhoods in real-time (Fig. 33). As CityBridge continues the rollout and innovates in advertising space, Links make up approximately 50 percent of New York City’s Out-of-Home advertising market.

Figure 33. Link NYC Advertising Campaigns, intersection.com

At the same time, Links want to be an essential part of New York City. The Franchise Agreement requires Links to allocate equivalent of 5 percent of total value of the advertising space to New York City Program Advertising free of charge. That 5 percent is utilized by the city to make public announcements or to promote any initiative. On top of the 5 percent allocated to public goods, CityBridge leverages its digital platform to integrate other data like transit information, real-time bus and subway information, to provide useful content to users. The LinkLocal program allows small businesses – that otherwise don’t have access to major Out-of- Home advertising platforms – to use Links’ advertising space for free (Stremple 2018). The New

York City Council and DoITT are utilizing Links for civic engagement, allowing New Yorkers to vote for Participatory Budgeting on the their tablets (“New York City Council” 2019). LinkNYCFacts became a beloved feature of Links trending on social media platforms like Instagram or Twitter, and the number of facts reached one thousand in 2019 (Giddon 2019) (Fig. 34).

Figure 34. LinkNYCFacts. Reprinted from “The #LinkNYCfacts Trends that Defined 2018”, 2019, medium.com

It would have been great if Links only went viral for something benign and cute as “If Manhattan had the same population density as Alaska, only 28 people would live there.” However, home to more than 8 million people, New Yorkers found other uses for Links: complaints were filed about people watching pornography on the tablet or using the public Wi-Fi (McGeehan 2016) (Fig. 35). The unsavory use of the new infrastructure was a part of the larger issue of loitering, extended use and attracting homeless people (“New Yorkers Express” 2018) (Fig. 36). Despite the negative media coverage and complaints from residents, the city and CityBridge viewed it as an “iterative” process and responded to any issues arising (McGeehan 2016).

Figure 35. Link NYC in Use. Reprinted from “Free Wi-Fi Kiosks Were to Aid New Yorkers. An Unsavory Side Has Spurred a Retreat.”, 2016, nytimes.com

Figure 36. Link NYC in Use. Reprinted from “LinkNYC Charging Kiosks Become Magnets For Homeless”, 2018, newyork.cbslocal.com

However, there were some structural challenges exposed. CityBridge is failing to fulfill deployment targets and its distribution came under scrutiny (Correal 2019). The amendment required CityBridge to deploy a minimum of 2,353 Links by July 20, 2019, but the current count (as of February 10, 2020) stands at 1,772 (Intersection n.d.). Local newspapers are raising concerns over its distribution that is densely clustered in Manhattan and its bordering neighborhoods. They question whether CityBridge is prioritizing its financial return over the promise to provide free Wi-Fi to those in need (Correal 2019). In terms of revenue, the city collected $43.5 million in payments in the first two years, just above the minimum -$42.5 million- guaranteed by contract (Calder 2018). And it is projected to miss revenue targets in 2019 and 2020 (Voytko 2019). It is true that CityBridge might have underwritten the growth in Out-of-Home advertising, its primary source of revenue, too aggressively. Also, it doesn’t help that CityBridge is in dispute with Consolidated Edison Company of New York (“Con Edison”) over application of tariff and mistreatment of Links as temporary structures that incurred CityBridge a cost close to $17 million (“Complaint of CityBridge” 2017).

Back in 2014, the biggest technology news were a launch of Apple Watch and Stephen Hawking’s warning of artificial intelligence ending mankind (Wakefield 2014). We were excited about what was next for technology and mused on how technology could threaten our existence. When the winner for RFP was announced later that year, The New York Times echoed the sense of excitement and shared mostly an optimistic view. It pointed out that arrangement felt a bit rushed and monopolistic, and glossed over privacy concerns in three sentences inclusive of a quote from a city officer (Flegenheimer 2014). When the first set of Links came online in 2016, privacy was a national topic with the backdrop of the San Bernardino shooting. Media and the public voiced their concerns over digital data and online privacy around the Links, but the conversations were overall courteous. A survey from 2017 showed that 92 percent of New Yorkers believed that Links would bring positive benefits to New York City (New York City 2017). But things turned upside down in 2018 and 2019. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive officer of Facebook, appeared in Washington D.C. for a congressional hearing following the Cambridge Analytica case. Up to 87 million Facebook users had their data improperly harvested and the fear for personal data became an epidemic (Wichter 2018). In the New York City, Amazon reneged on a promise to open its second headquarters there (Goodman 2019). Win or lose, New Yorkers were left with a bitter realization that big technology companies’ influence could be disproportionate and urban in scale. Over in Canada, another big technology company, Sidewalk Labs5, was struggling to build trust with its citizen in the process of developing a 12-acre smart city: 60 percent of respondents did not trust Sidewalk Labs to collect data on its residents according to a survey (“Support for Sidewalk Toronto Mixed” 2019). When a man vandalized 42 Links in April 2019, New Yorkers were more upset that the cameras on Links were on and could be used against them than there was a man throwing rocks at private property serving public needs (Fig. 37). The phenomenon ignited questions on whether Links were truly “free” and what was the true cost behind the infrastructure (Fig. 38).

5 Subsidiary of Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

Figure 37. Link NYC smashed. Reprinted from “WATCH: Video Shows Man Wanted in LinkNYC Kiosk Smash Spree”, 2019, ny1.com

Figure 38. Link NYC, a renewed perception. Reprinted from “Not Your Grandpa’s Payphone”, 2017, indypendent.org

3.4 Analysis

The concept of Link NYC as a provider of free public Wi-Fi qualifies it as an infrastructure according to the discussion in Chapter 2. Digital divide is a common theme across the board and its kiosks are certain to provide an essential service to many across a range of urban geographies. However, we understand that the value of an infrastructure can be transient, and an analysis of a technology-enabled infrastructure requires us to take a closer look at each asset and its construct. In this section, I evaluate Link NYC from economic, social, environmental and user experience perspectives while examining its framework that brings the concept to reality, sets directions for alignment of interests, and determines its ability to navigate uncertainties lying ahead. Lastly, I share my assessment of the variables to gauge risks and opportunities associated with Link NYC.

Link NYC was born out of a public-private partnership. A pilot to provide free public Wi-Fi off existing payphones from the Bloomberg administration led to a series of public processes that awarded CityBridge a franchise agreement. From early on, the city made it clear that it would not contribute to installation, operation and maintenance costs of the new infrastructure. At the same time, it set an expectation of guaranteed annual revenue of $17.5 million to the city that is reflective of revenue capture by advertising from the last years of payphones. The initial cost estimate for the installation came out as $200 million and CityBridge had nowhere to turn but to advertising.

The RFP outlined that the project would be primarily funded through advertising. The city noticed that the advertising revenue from payphones exceeded the revenue from collecting coins and there was a strong growth there despite decreasing number of payphones (Flamm 2012). What the city observed was a part of larger growth in Out-of-Home advertising in the U.S. and CityBridge took a step further to bet on and lead digital Out-of-Home advertising in New York City (Fig. 39). Digital Out-of-Home advertising got its greenlight from Federal Highway Administration in 2007 (Federal Highway Administration n.d.), but it wasn’t until the early 2010s that digital advertising made it into our malls and city streets (Frisicchio 2018). Digital Out-of-Home advertising promised efficiency and effectiveness being a digital platform and offered potential for value-add with development of technologies that can accomplish a greater degree of customization. By the time CityBridge signed the franchise agreement, the minimum annual guarantee increased to the greater of $20 million (Contract Year 1) or 50 percent of gross

revenue with the minimum annual guarantee growing at 9 percent compound annual growth rate to $70 million on Contract Year 15. In total, CityBridge promised the city more than $500 million in revenue from this franchise agreement.

Figure 39. Out-of-Home advertising historical revenue from 2009 to 2018, oaaa.org

To finance the project, CityBridge was created in late 2014 as a joint venture between Qualcomm, JMC Capital Partners6, Control Group and Titan. Qualcomm and JMC Capital Partners each invested $25 million and $50 million came from Control Group and Titan (Pitchbook n.d.). In 2017, Intersection (a merger between Control Group and Titan led by Sidewalk Labs) raised $150 million in equity from Graham Holdings Company, ArrowMark Partners and NewSpring (Businesswire 2017). The funding was not exclusively for Link NYC, but broadly for its business, namely expansions to London and Philadelphia. In 2018, CityBridge sought an EB-5 financing of $158 million from New York City Regional Center (Shahrigian 2018).

Putting aside financing, one might challenge that CityBridge’s underwriting was overly optimistic. In 2014, Out-of-Home advertising as an industry was growing at 3 percent per year and there were uncertainties around the new business model. After five years, Out-of-Home advertising grew 7.7 percent in the second quarter compared to the previous year and digital Out- of-Home advertising represented 31 percent of total Out-of-Home advertising revenue (Out of Home Advertising Association of America 2019). In 2018, digital Out-of-Home advertising was growing at 16 percent year on year (Côté 2018). The remarkable growth stories come in stark contrast to headlines on “delinquency” of Link NYC and its inability to meet delivery schedule

6 A private equity firm headquartered in Boston, MA with $331 million assets under management (Pitchbook n.d.).

(Lyons 2020). How did this happen when the city and CityBridge seem to be largely on the same page on economics and the market growth followed since the deal was struck? (Fig. 40)

Figure 40. Priorities. Created by Author

It is hard to dispute the social value of free public Wi-Fi that Link NYC creates. Internet access has become synonymous with social access to basic services like education and economic opportunities. The primary public benefit of Link NYC was clearly defined as free public Wi-Fi and it was framed as an attempt to address the digital divide. In the franchise agreement, the digital divide is not just metaphoric, but takes geographic characteristics as well. The schedule tied to the contract stipulates the required cumulative number of kiosks per Contract Year for each borough. The construct ensures equitable distribution of kiosks across the five boroughs and mitigates the risk of overconcentrating kiosks in Manhattan where internet access is less of a problem, but more attractive for advertising. CityBridge, a private company that owns the kiosks, would comply with the guideline, but was not necessarily incentivized to install kiosks where foot traffic and commercial activities are low. Instead of a universal 50 percent revenue share, it could have aligned the interests of the city and CityBridge better if the revenue rate reflected social needs and economics of kiosks on a smaller geographic scale than a borough.

As expressed in the franchise agreement, New York City wants free public Wi-Fi to be made available as soon as possible. The contract requires CityBridge to deploy 7,500 kiosks (minimum threshold) by Contract Year 8 and 61 percent of them by Contract Year 4. All the while, a minimum annual guarantee is in place limiting the franchise’s ability to recoup early earnings to follow the ramp up (Fig. 41, 42). If we divide minimum annual guarantee by the number of

54 kiosks required to be in place, the first three Contract Years’ minimum annual guarantee far exceeds the median of $8,438.80 per kiosk: $39,215, $14,705 and $8,833 respectively. At the same time, the contract considers revenue share. Link NYC presents a new device, installation and operation that is more tech-heavy than good old payphones. As with many infrastructure projects, Link NYC experienced delay and cost overrun. The initial installation cost estimate of $200 million sounds more palatable than the current estimate of $525 million, representing an increase in unit cost from $27,000 to $70,000. The dispute with Con Edison around installation of service lines alone accounts for $12,000 per kiosk. If the city prioritized a successful rollout over revenue, it could have considered alternatives like profit share that can be more sensible to any unforeseen risks. While the social value of the service provided by Link NYC is clear, it is questionable whether the franchise agreement is good representation of the interests and priorities of the city and CityBridge.

Figure 41. Minimum Annual Guarantee and its Year-over-Year (YOY) Percentage Change. Created by Author

Figure 42. Advertising Structure Rollout and its Year-over-Year (YOY) Percentage Change. Created by Author

While New York City and CityBridge tried to strike a delicate balance between their interests, a user’s interest in Link NYC is a simple one: free, accessible and fast interest access without significant compromise to privacy and visual pollution. Success and failure of a service provided by infrastructure can be measured by user experience that represents often overlooked constituents in public-private partnership. Earlier in this section, I pointed out how the issue of prescribing social benefit of Link NYC tied to boroughs led to misalignment of interests. From user and urban perspectives, the bigger question is whether inheriting the locations of payphones was the best way forward. Is demand for free public Wi-Fi greatest where the payphones were? Is need for free public Wi-Fi greatest where the payphones were? Are the locations of payphones best for advertising?

In order to cultivate a deeper understanding of the efficacy of Link NYC, it is helpful to take a step back to the human scale and origins of the project. The kiosks and payphones share an important similarity of empowering people to communicate and stay connected, but their experiences cannot be more different. Payphones come with different form factors – enclosed, roofed or exposed – and all of them are designed to form a close, protected relationship with a user. Time is limited by how many coins one carries and incremental being a coin-operated, pre- payment model. While in use, one is occupying and renting the space linked to the payphone. On the other hand, kiosks are ubiquitous and external. Each kiosk can service many simultaneously and its real estate is defined as a radius rather than the space it creates. Kiosks are predisposed to form a series of linear networks along major avenues and streets (Fig. 43). The phenomenon is attributed to payphone locations they replaced and installation of fiber optic cable. While the linear networks work well for people using the free public Wi-Fi in motion, their locale of commercial corridors rarely provides space or street furniture for static use. Where there are public spaces, like parks, kiosks often tower over the corners where payphones in the past provided best access (Fig. 44). At the same time, the linear characteristic limits its service to an area like Times Square where it requires a web-like coverage of free public Wi-Fi (Fig. 45). The technology, scale and consistency in experience Link NYC kiosks present tremendous value to users, but how they were incepted and deployed leads to the question of the absence of a thorough study from a user’s perspective.

Figure 43. Linear Coverage. Created by Author

Figure 44. Mismatch. Created by Author

Figure 45. Linear Network. Created by Author

Environmentally, Link NYC did not have a direct value proposition. Some kiosks are equipped with environmental sensors that collect data on elements like temperature, humidity, light and air pollution. Making environmental data available through an expansive network of kiosks is a promising step forward for a data-driven and focused approach to environmental issues. A more tangible case for environment for Link NYC can be made with built quality of kiosks. Inspired by how payphones played a critical role during Hurricane Sandy, each kiosk is built to withstand natural disasters. Moreover, kiosks aimed high when it comes to their digital capacity, and headroom is key in allowing continuing innovations and avoiding functional obsolescence.

Public Benefit

Link NYC was born out of a public initiative to provide free public Wi-Fi. New York City recognized the digital divide as a problem and sought expiring payphone contracts as an opportunity to tackle the issue. As a winner of the RFP, Link NYC made a strong case for becoming a provider for an essential service. Available data on its usage suggests that the kiosks and services they provide are extensively used by the general public and do serve a population in need. However, its construct as an essential service can be challenged in two ways.

First, it is uncertain if the services provided by Link NYC will maintain its pertinence over time. When Link NYC first launched, it was lauded as the largest and fastest free public Wi-Fi in the world (City of New York 2011). More importantly, it was a marquee public policy to address the digital divide in the city. Since then, private investments led by tech companies –like Sprint, Comcast and Facebook– have intensified to make high-speed internet universally accessible (Kang 2016). From the public side, New York City continued to reevaluate the situation and most recently announced Internet Master Plan that aims to deliver universal broadband through partnerships with private companies and leveraging City assets (City of New York 2020). These forces will only grow over the course of Link NYC’s 15-year contract and its value as an essential service might be compromised.

Second, there is a limitation in the contract preventing the franchise from taking a proactive role in becoming an enduring essential service. Granted, it might have been an oversimplication of the problem or an overpromise to substantially address the digital divide in New York City by putting up 10,000 kiosks where payphones used to be. In the midst of fast changing landscape of increasing private investments and evolving public policy, it would have been beneficial to have

an ability or an option to review its distribution and schedule to recalibrate its future plan. However, the fact that it inherited geographic characteristics from the old payphone contracts limits the franchise’s ability to navigate the uncertainties lying ahead in maintaining its foothold as an essential service.

Where there are challenges, there are opportunities. Link NYC found that its physical presence and digital technologies can start to engage users and become a part of social fabric of New York City. Programs like displaying transit information or becoming a voting booth for participatory budgeting can increase day-to-day efficiency of users and further promote civic engagement. Moreover, some programs proved to directly promote economic activities of the underserved. For example, LinkLocal, a program that gives access to Out-of-Home advertising to small businesses for free, is a case where a large platform with digital technology can give access to exposure otherwise cost-prohibitive and onerous to the owners (similar to what Facebook7 and other online platforms had done). Link NYC anticipates more rollout in less dense areas of New York City where Out-of-Home marketing might not be optimal. It can be an opportunity to engage local communities and their economic activities on the platform to become a part of social and economic infrastructure, broadening the universe of essential services Link NYC is providing.

Degradation of Link NYC’s integrity as an essential service can be a risk in the long-term. The survey conducted a year after the initial deployment showed that 78 percent have favorable opinions on the network and 89 percent appreciate the free service in exchange for advertising (City of New York 2017). That sentiment might change in the future when its service becomes less essential, and it can even become a social risk unless it proves to provide other essential services.

Competition

As noted in the literature review, limited competition or non-competitive environment is a hallmark of infrastructure investing. In the case of Link NYC, it is not as clear cut as a natural monopoly common to some utilities. The concept of competition for Link NYC can be bifurcated.

7 Facebook has more than 7 million active advertisers on its platform (Facebook 2019).

First, competition against a newcomer with the same business plan. Link NYC being the first program of its kind enjoys some first mover advantages, but exclusivity is not one of them. The franchise agreement is a non-exclusive, giving the city freedom to pursue any other opportunities to provide free public Wi-Fi with or without advertising at any time. However, the contract provides some level of protection. Link NYC inherits authorizing resolutions of payphones and takes ownership of all the existing installations. These provisions allow a faster rollout across boroughs and a clear runway up to 10,000 kiosks. In the case of United Kingdom, Intersection entered a joint venture with Primesight to contract with BT Group plc, a public company that owns and operates 17,500 phone boxes, to replace a portion of UK’s nationwide network of payphones (BBC News 2017). The partnership gives the joint venture peace of mind from competition, but it didn’t not protect them from opposition from local councils and Metropolitan Police.

Each kiosk is more than a commodity: it is unique in design and “high tech”. It is unlike payphones that were operated under 13 franchise agreements in New York City as of 2012 and virtually indistinguishable from one another in design and function (Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications 2012). At the same time, the research and development costs as well as infrastructure costs – connection to power and high-speed fiber optic cable – constitute sizable start-up costs. Once installed, the kiosks form a network and its consistency in design, function and media develop a strong brand equity for the franchise. The city will have to think twice before introducing a new network of similar function and form factor in order to maintain a level of simplicity and consistency in streetscape. The brand the franchise cultivates in New York City can be desirable for other global cities seeing it as a proof of concept and as an import from New York City.

Second, competition for Out-of-Home advertising. As noted earlier in the chapter, Out-of-Home advertising is the fastest growing vertical within advertising and the franchise’s underwriting heavily depends on its sustained growth. Competition is heating up and there are constant efforts to innovate using technology and to increase coverage. For example, Outfront Media won a RFP to install and operate digital screens in Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) assets – subways, buses and commuter rails - for up to 15 years (Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2017). While Outfront Media’s MTA advertising captures audiences in transit, Link NYC kiosks

– classified as street furniture – hold pedestrians as captive audiences. Growing competition does not necessarily mean that Link NYC’s projected revenue is in peril. Each Out-of-Home advertising installation comes with different physical and locational characteristics that dictate the target audience that caters to different advertisers and campaigns. Link NYC’s expansive citywide, street level presence is unique and an opportunity to revamp street furniture on that scale is rare. Link NYC is considered to capture about a half of Out-of-Home advertising market in New York City and its success is likely to continue.

Physical

We commonly associate an infrastructure with a landmark or a standalone object like the George Washington Bridge. The bridge is close enough to New York City to be highly visible to many and critical to 300,000 drivers who rely on the infrastructure every day. Comparing the image of George Washington Bridge to Link NYC, one might find it difficult to reconcile their differences. Link NYC possesses unique physical characteristics that set it apart from assets like bridges and toll roads and create opportunities for taking on additional services and revenue generating opportunities.

As briefly noted earlier in this section, Link NYC forms a network. As of early 2020, there are 1740 kiosks in New York City across five boroughs (with a plan to install up to 10,000). Their locational characteristics follow old payphones and the kiosks leverage proximity and visibility to users to provide public free Wi-fi and sell advertising. In creating the network, CityBridge connected each kiosk with power and fiber optic cable. The physical presence above ground and strength in connectivity underground of the kiosks present the franchise with opportunities like Wi-Fi offloading and Small Cells for 5G. In 2020, New York City approved franchise agreements to install 4G and 5G equipment on street lamps, traffic lights and utility poles and signaled that street furniture like Link NYC can be utilized to foster faster connectivity (Jones 2020).

The network Link NYC has value beyond its locational and functional characteristics. Just as George Washington Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco commands strong brand, Link NYC can leverage its expansive street presence and positive association as a provider of an

essential service to yield a sponsorship opportunity. As an example, Citi Bike8 has 853 active stations as of late 2019 and its sponsorship makes up a third of revenue (“Citi Bike” 2019). Citigroup as a title sponsor initially paid $41 million for the first six years and committed additional $70.5 million for an extension (“Citigroup” 2014). For Link NYC, it is an untapped opportunity.

Digital

While physical characteristics of Link NYC provide hardware for providing essential services and promise some ancillary revenue opportunities, the digital side of Link NYC delivers the services and poses as an exciting opportunity to drive revenue growth. Link NYC relies heavily on Digital Out-of-Home advertising as the largest source of revenue and the key driver for its revenue growth. The industry, as noted earlier, is growing fast, and companies are innovating to bring the benefits of digital technologies to age-old Out-of-Home advertising. In recent years, there has been a push for Programmatic Digital Out-of-Home advertising that allows automated sales transactions and delivery using computer programs. So far, Digital Out-of-Home advertising sales has been manual and laborious. With Programmatic Digital Out-of-Home advertising, there is an efficiency gain as well as price discovery using mechanisms like real- time bidding and programmatic direct9. On top of that, external data -like geographic locations, weather and transit- can be layered to improve targeting and relevance of campaigns. These innovations promise to increase efficiency while improving effectiveness of Digital Out-of- Home advertising.

Social

As noted in the earlier sections, Link NYC always had concerns over privacy. However, privacy was not at the center of discussion in the earlier days of planning, and it would have been hard to anticipate the level of anxiety and mistrust we see today. The biggest challenge for Link NYC on its social risk is that CityBridge does not immediately have an adequate tool, measure, or an outlet to communicate and built trust with users.

8 Citi Bike is a public bicycle sharing system in New York City. 9 Programmatic direct sells inventory directly to buyers. This method allows buyers to make purchases based on desired metrics and parameters. (Côté 2018)

In summary, Link NYC is overall a successful example of technology-enabled infrastructure. It provides an essential service to the public and does so at no cost to taxpayers. Its agreement is designed to promote equity and promise revenue to the City of New York. There are lingering questions around its viability and efficacy, but it may be acceptable to see it as a work in progress given it is the first of its kind. This case study captures how the process of creating new assets may look through a public-private partnership, and one can use layering uses and increasing utilization as strategies to capture ancillary revenues and improve services.

Chapter 4: BigBelly

Chapter 4, BigBelly, continues our journey, taking a deeper look at the underlying infrastructural fabric of New York City. This chapter presents the story of how an existing infrastructure can provide additional10 essential services by layering new uses, using BigBelly as an example. Section 4.1, BigBelly 1.0, first introduces the concept of waste infrastructure and frames its contemporary challenges. Then, it shares a brief account of BigBelly’s birth and rise as a leading smart waste management company addressing these challenges. Section 4.2, The Progress, takes a closer look at the steps taken by BigBelly and other factors contributing to its development in considering layer an additional use. Section 4.3, BigBelly 2.0, examines the current state of BigBelly and opportunities regarding internet access. Section 4.4, Analysis, evaluates BigBelly and its journey to layer uses, and the variables that are taken into consideration in examining the viability of the layering transformation.

In action movies, we love seeing protagonists landing their broken planes on highways. It’s cool, but no, –the Interstate Highway System is not designed to accommodate emergency landings (Federal Highway Administration n.d.). So far as our infrastructures are concerned, they are optimized to serve their primary uses. It is hard to imagine a high-speed rail suddenly running on I-95 and crushing the travel time between New York City and Boston in less than 2 hours. And it is even harder to imagine our “D+ infrastructure” taking on other infrastructural needs beyond its primary uses (“America’s Infrastructure Report Card 2017 | GPA: D+” 2017). However, the promise of better and greener technologies –5G connectivity and electric vehicles to name a few– is pushing us to think creatively to realize their potential by leveraging existing infrastructure. For example, there are attempts to address the critical limitation of commercial electric vehicles, long charging time, by integrating charging infrastructure into highways (Krauss 2019) (Fig. 46). And, believe it or not, trash cans found in major cities and campuses – called BigBelly - want to take part in the 5G rollout (Andrews 2019) (Fig. 47).

10 It is distinct from adaptive reuse where you change one use for another.

Figure 46. Building the eRoadArlanda. Reprinted from “World's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in Sweden” by Daniel Boffey, 2018, theguardian.com

Figure 47. BigBelly in New York City. Reprinted from “NYC’s Bigbelly Trash and Recycling Bins Double as Wi- Fi Hotspots” by Dana Schulz, 2015, 6sqft.com

4.1 BigBelly 1.0

Payphones feel like antiquities, especially after discussing them posthumously in the previous chapter. However, their over-a-century-old history is no match for that of waste management. The history of waste management started with human settlement and one of the earliest waste management infrastructures, Cloaca Maxima11, was built in the 6th century BC. The need for more robust and advanced waste management exploded following urbanization and the Industrial Revolution. At the same time, increasing industrial production in concert with economic and population growth led to the problem of solid waste management apart from waste water management, as evidenced in Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (Fig. 48). In the past couple of decades, globalization expanded the footprint of every local waste management system and turned waste management into a global issue as much as a local one (“Globalisation and Waste Management” 2014).

Figure 48. Production of household waste, Paris, 1870–1980. Reprinted from “History of Waste Management and the Social and Cultural Representations of Waste” by Sabine Barles, 2014

Globally, our cities are generating more than 2 billion tonnes of solid waste each year and the figure is expected to reach 3.4 billion tonnes by 2050 (“Trends in Solid Waste Management” n.d.). The 70 percent growth in global waste generation is staggering, but the wide range in waste generation per capita – from 0.11 to 4.54 kilograms – deserves attention too (“Trends in Solid Waste Management” n.d.). High-income countries generate disproportionately more waste than

11 An ancient Roman sewer (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica n.d.).

66 lower income groups, and the United States and Canada average among the highest waste generations per capita, at 2.21 kilograms per day (“Trends in Solid Waste Management” n.d.) (Fig. 49). It is true that waste generation is overall positively correlated to economic development and urbanization, and most of the growth in waste generation until 2050 will likely happen in developing countries. While international institutions like the World Bank are promoting initiatives to help address fundamental challenges these countries are facing, cities in high-income countries are facing their own challenges of rising cost, resiliency and calls for sustainability.

Figure 49. Projected Waste Generation by Region. Reprinted from “What a Waste 2.0” by Slipa Kaza et al., 2018, World Bank Group

Solid waste management is generally a local responsibility (“Trends in Solid Waste Management” n.d.). The system of municipal solid waste management in the US was established by George Waring, the Sanitation Commissioner of New York City, in the late 1800s and was adopted nationwide (Louis 2004). Today, the Department of Sanitation in New York City collects more than 1,810 tonnes of solid waste each day and manages 6,300 miles of streets (Johnson and Reynoso, 2019). The Department employs more than 10,000 people and its annual

budget is over $1.7 billion (Johnson and Reynoso, 2019). The public system serves residential buildings, government agencies and non-profits and handles about half of the total solid waste the city generates (Honan 2019). The private system handles the rest and costs New Yorkers an additional $730 million annually (“12 Things New Yorkers Should Know About Their Garbage” 2014) (Fig. 50, 51).

Figure 50. “7 Reasons Recycling Isn’t Working in New York City” by Anne Barnard, 2020, nytimes.com

Figure 51. “New York City Council to Vote on Overhaul for Commercial-Waste Collection” by Katie Honan, 2019, wsj.com

Surprisingly, New Yorkers generate less waste per capita than the average American at 1.36 kilograms per day (“Map: Where Are the Trashiest New Yorkers?” 2014), but that doesn’t mean that it is cheap or fully functional. The city’s collection cost per ton towers at $251 compared to $7 in Arlington, TX and $182 in Washington D.C. and its recycling rate bottoms out at 15 percent compared to the national average of 34 percent and San Francisco’s 80 percent (“Map: Where Are the Trashiest New Yorkers?” 2014). The issue of waste management has been a sticky subject in New York City politics (and any municipalities) for a long time and the

68 evolution of dialogues around it – from the closing of Fresh Kills to environmental impacts – has been particularly alluring for smart waste management startups like BigBelly.

In 2003, Jim Poss, an MBA candidate at Babson University, was walking on the beautiful Charles Street in Boston on a weekend. And what drew his attention was not the colonial brick row houses but the garbage cans overflowing with trash. He also remembered how unpleasant it can be to walk alongside a garbage truck emitting air and noise pollution. He felt the pains every user and public agency could relate to and came up with a solution of compacting trash in a bin (Bigbelly 2013). His background in electric vehicles and solar-power helped him quickly prototype and iterate on a solar-powered trash compactor (Fig. 52, 53, 54).

Figure 52. Projected Waste Generation by Region. Reprinted from “What a Waste 2.0” by Slipa Kaza et al., 2018, World Bank Group

In 2004, Seahorse Power Co. (the company he founded with friends) installed a unit in Vail Resorts in Colorado as a proof-of-concept (Overfelt 2004). In 2005, the company delivered 50 units to Queens, NY, its first customer, and subsequently raised $1.1 million from angel investors like Massachusetts Green Energy Fund and private individuals (“Seahorse Power Company” 2005). In 2007, the third generation of BigBelly came out with product redesign and a new feature, network and online management system. The connectivity allows users to know when a unit needs emptying, creating greater potential for lower collection. Leveraging extended capabilities and rebranding as BigBelly Solar, the company closed an agreement with the city of Philadelphia to provide 500 units in 2008. By 2009, it raised an additional $3.2 million in equity

69 to produce and deliver the products at scale and continue to innovate (“Solar Trash Compactor Firm BigBelly Raises $3.2M” n.d.) (Fig. 55).

Figure 53. US7481159B2. Reprinted from “Solar powered compaction apparatus” by James Poss et al., n.d., patents.google.com

Figure 54. US9352887B2. Reprinted from “Electrically-powered programmable waste enclosure” by James Poss et al., n.d., patents.google.com

Figure 55. Timeline. Created by Author

4.2 The Progress

BigBelly spotted inefficiencies in municipal solid waste management and developed an innovative solution using technology. Its core value proposition of cost saving using solar- powered compaction and information technology was well received by initial clients and investors. BigBelly leveraged its early successes to accomplish remarkable organic growth in the 2010s, outpacing its competition. In this section, I closely examine BigBelly’s successes in select key markets in the U.S. to shed light on the quality and ways of its growth.

Figure 56. BigBelly Major Deployments. Created by Author

Going back to 2008, the Philadelphia contract was a major milestone for BigBelly (Fig. 56). The contract validated its product and laid out a runway to scale. The additional equity raised boosted confidence for the business to grow nationally and internationally. For Philadelphia, BigBelly offered a solution to its age-old concern to keep streets clean and reduce waste collection in high traffic areas. However, Philadelphia Streets Department’s decision to purchase 500 units was not without controversy. The promise of cost-saving with a smart city technology was an opportune one, but the psychological weight of paying 37 times more for trash containers than what the city was used to paying ($3,700 versus $100) was felt by many in the thick of a Global Financial Crisis (Office of the Controller 2010). However, soon the results spoke for themselves: collections were reduced from an average of 17 per week to 3 per week (Philadelphia Streets Department n.d.). At the same time, the city found value in BigBelly’s extensive street presence and started to capitalize on it by dedicating 50 Litter Critter BigBelly units creatively designed by local artists and students from Mural Art’s Big Picture Program (Philadelphia Streets Department n.d.) (Fig. 57).

Figure 57. Designed BigBelly unit in Philadelphia. Reprinted from “Litter Critter BigBelly Units”, n.d., philadelphiastreets.com

In 2013, BigBelly made a splash in New York City, delivering 30 waste and recycling stations in Times Square (Fig. 58). The deployment was a pilot for the City’s initiative for encouraging public space recycling with a goal of doubling the recycling rate to 30 percent by 2017 (City of New York 2013). The pilot was proven successful and the deployment expanded to 197 units, and today the recycling rate stands at 40 percent (BigBelly n.d.). The city emphasized the environmental benefits of BigBelly – cutting greenhouse emissions and boosting recycling – over the cost-saving benefits much appreciated by the City of Philadelphia. In order to understand the disparity in these cities’ interests, it is worth noting a couple of things. The deployment in New York City was with the Times Square Alliance, a not-for-profit Business Improvement District (BID)12 (Fig. 59). For the Times Square Alliance, cost-saving was not a priority or a reasonable expectation as it was primarily concerned with improving quality of experience in the district, and it made more sense to re-purpose labor than making an argument for a reduction. At the same time, it was difficult to expect to maximize the benefit of cost-

12 Business Improvement District is “a geographical area where local stakeholders oversee and fund the maintenance, improvement, and promotion of their commercial district” (City of New York n.d.). There are 76 BIDs in New York City and annually $167 million is invested in BIDs.

72 saving at a smaller scale deployment. However, Times Square learned to benefit from the original problem – 500,000 daily visitors dumping trash (City of New York 2013) – by having them become a captive audience for static advertising on the distributed network of BigBelly units.

Figure 58. Mayor Bloomberg launching recycling initiative. Reprinted from “BigBelly Solar- Powered Recycling Bins Headed to Times Square”, 2013, gothamist.com

Figure 59. New York City Waste Management Initiatives. Created by Author

In 2014, the Downtown Alliance, a BID in Lower Manhattan, expanded its deployment of BigBelly recycling bin from 16 to 174. The Alliance started its pilot in 2012 and gradually grew its fleet to include 174 compactors and 16 recycling bins. When compared to the deployment by the Times Square Alliance, the scale and many aspects of the deals are the same. For BigBelly,

both deployments represent one-time sales with software license agreements. From the BIDs’ perspectives, the deals are very different in that the latter was a public-private partnership with Vector Media. The Out-of-Home advertising company purchased the units (Woods 2014) on the Downtown Alliance’s behalf while becoming the exclusive media partner for the units (Downtown Alliance 2014). On the other hand, the Times Square Alliance bought the units themselves and it is administering advertising practice to this day (Fig. 60). In Boston, Vector Media promised to install and maintain 400 compactors and recycling units, and agreed to return a minimum of $250,000 in advertising revenue to the city and an estimated cost saving of $3 million for the city (Farrell 2012).

Figure 60. BigBelly locations. Reprinted from “The Downtown Alliance Expands Innovative Solar-powered Trash Collection by Adding Recycling to Successful High-tech Waste Collection System”, 2014, downtownny.com

While the value of BigBelly’s presence in high traffic areas of major cities as advertising a platform did not go unnoticed, cities and BIDs found other values in BigBelly. For the BIDs, BigBelly’s dense network jibes well with the coverage of free public Wi-Fi that they desire to provide as an amenity. BigBelly units are close to users and the form factor can conceal necessary equipment within (Poon 2015). Moreover, BigBelly units are already “connected,” providing automated real-time collection notifications and other operational services using CLEAN Software (BigBelly n.d.) (Fig. 61). Attractive physical characteristics and digital

74 prowess led BIDs and some cities to believe the step towards Wi-Fi was a natural extension, despite technological challenges (Blackburn-Dwyer 2016).

Figure 61. CLEAN Software. Reprinted from bigbelly.com

In 2017, the De Blasio Administration announced a $32 million plan for rodent control. The plan targets the three most infested parts of the city – the Grand Concourse area, Chinatown/East Village/Lower East Side, and Bushwick/Bedford-Stuyvesant – and BigBelly was promoted to play a central role with a 336-unit deployment (City of New York 2017). Often compared to mailboxes, BigBelly units offer inherent protection against critters preying on loose waste cans. The decision follows the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s trial of BigBelly units at Thomas Paine Park, where they reduced the number of rats without extermination efforts (Apolitical 2017) (Fig. 62).

Figure 62. A rat in Central Park. Reprinted from “New City Rat Controls Put a Chill on Population Growth”, 2019, wsj.com

In this section, I depicted how BigBelly evolved from its initial core value proposition to something beyond. BigBelly has shown its ability to provide customized solutions to customers with different needs (Fig. 63). Its essential service as an innovative solid waste management is always present, but it successfully discovered and put forth other values and benefits attractive to customers and public alike. BigBelly’s continued innovation in technology and business was possible due to its entrepreneurial spirit as well as social and political tailwinds for equity and environmental concerns. There are now more than 60,000 BigBelly units globally and more than half of these new deployments are subscription-based. The scale and the transition in business model became the foundation for its ambition for BigBelly 2.0.

Philadelphia Times Square Downtown Alliance Department of Alliance Sanitation Year 2008 2013 2014 2017 Units 500 197 158 336 Distribution Scale Citywide BID BID Citywide, Targeted Distribution Type Direct Direct Indirect Direct Goals Economic, Environmental Economic, Rodent Control Environmental Environmental

Figure 63. Comparative analysis of deployments. Created by Author

4.3 BigBelly 2.0

BigBelly is now on the verge of a transformation. It is leveraging its expansive network of units to enter wireless communication space and its prime target is 5G. 5G promises signification benefits to users: much higher data transfer rates (1-20 Gbit/s), enabling consumers to download content more quickly, and much lower latency (1 ms), allowing users to experience less delay/lag when requesting data from the network. At the same time, it offers an increased capacity as the network expands.

Surrounded by all the hype, 5G technology’s rollout suffers from many challenges, particularly its deployment in urban areas. Many small cell sites will be needed to extend the coverage of mobile networks to indoor areas where outdoor signals do not penetrate well, or to add outdoor capacity in areas with very dense data usage. This will trigger a whole new set of considerations besides cost. The network design, access to adequate cheap infrastructure, and deployment timelines are all key to profitability. Another hurdle is that constant connectivity—a must-have for mobile broadband—will be severely limited for high-band 5G due to propagation losses at higher frequencies. Delivering the promised performance improvements of 5G through high- band spectrum, on the other hand, would require a fundamentally different architecture with much denser networks—something like 15 to 20 sites per square kilometer in highly populated urban environments, as opposed to two to five sites today.

Increasing density of sites is a major challenge in dense urban areas. People come up with strategies like installation on lampposts, traffic lights and other street furniture. All the while, the best locations for such deployments will be different by city and operator. Mobile network operators are scrambling to find access to adequate and cheap infrastructure where they can meet aggressive deployment timelines.

In response, BigBelly has developed a suite of new devices they call TeleBelly (Fig. 64). Its benefits over other street furniture are ease in access, ability to hide equipment interior and integration to existing wireless communication structure. From a customer’s perspective, the potential revenue stream associated with siting telecommunications equipment can be attractive. Also, the multi-functional infrastructure can maximize the utilization of public space by providing multiple essential services without cluttering the street.

BigBelly’s entry to wireless communication is an exciting next step. However, there are challenges down the road. Approval from a city is needed to carry out any constructions related to the service. At this time, existing BigBelly units are not connected to power or fiber optic cable and the time needed for such installation can be viewed as burdensome (Fig. 65).

Figure 64. Opportunities in rural and urban America. Created by Author

Before BigBelly BigBelly 1.0 BigBelly 2.0 No Revenue Some Revenue More Revenue Limited Capacity 5x Capacity 5x Capacity High Operating Expense Lower Operating Expense Lower Operating Expense Sustainable Sustainable Smart Smart Privately Funded Units More Privately Funded Units Other Services

Figure 65. Opportunities in rural and urban America. Created by Author

4.4 Analysis

BigBelly, as a smart waste management platform, takes part in an essential service that has sustained our civilization for thousands of years. There is no doubt that solid waste management has been and will continue to be an integral part of our day to day lives. BigBelly found its success bringing in modern technology to an ancient service and it is contemplating providing other essential services, or layering uses. This section analyzes BigBelly from economic, social, user experience and environmental perspectives to demonstrate how BigBelly set itself up to make the leap forward. Lastly, I will share my view on the variables pertaining to BigBelly, with an emphasis on its transitory moment.

Figure 66. Economic Value Proposition. Created by Author

Figure 67. Core Value Proposition. Created by Author

The economic value BigBelly brings to customers is a valuable one (Fig. 66). However, its clients – many of whom are public agencies, not-for-profit-organizations and educational institutions – do not have economic interests at the forefront. Some of BigBelly’s most notable deals in New York City were not motivated by its superior economics. The Times Square

Alliance deployment promoted the city’s commitment to recycling, and the Department of Sanitation deployment signaled the city’s major step towards rodent control. Nevertheless, the cost saving and revenue generating aspects of BigBelly have not gone unnoticed and, in fact, played an integral role in justifying its large upfront cost. BigBelly is incentivized to strengthen its core value proposition around economics, while continuing to innovate and provide other benefits that are attractive to its clients (Fig. 67).

The evolution of BigBelly’s business model reflects the process of discovering its value through multiple deployments. The first deployment in Philadelphia was a direct sale to the Philadelphia Streets Department, through which the city utilized BigBelly’s street presence as an opportunity to display and promote local art. BigBelly’s most recent deployment in Philadelphia was at no cost to the city, as an advertising agency purchased the units in exchange for an advertising contract. Ultimately, BigBelly realized that a recurring revenue model can bring not only consistent and predictable revenue, but also the ability to retain a portion of revenues coming from other services (Fig. 68, 69). At the same time, customers voiced a need for BigBelly’s expertise in proactively maintaining the units as they became more sophisticated in order to retain aesthetics, durability and functionality. The trust that BigBelly earned over the years as a result of delivering promised economic and other benefits, as well as continued innovations to layer other services like Wi-Fi, 4G and 5G, put BigBelly in the best position for seeking new contracts and renew old ones on a subscription model.

User experience with a trash can is immemorable at best. We are generally agnostic to our choice of trash cans (as long as they are functional) and we probably will not remember our experiences unless something went horribly wrong (Joung 2019). We care more about whether the trash cans are nearby and empty enough to dispose our garbage in. Customers decide how many units to buy, where to put them and how to manage them. In BigBelly’s case, it has control over the design and branding of each unit. BigBelly's shape and size are reminiscent of mailboxes and its design details -curved corners and top- prefer discreteness over loudness. The familiar and minimal design allows for flexible distribution, matching users’ needs without negatively impacting the experience. For example, in Times Square, BigBelly units are more densely populated around the "Crossroads" (Fig. 70).

Figure 68. One-time Sales Models. Created by Author

Figure 69. Subscription Model. Created by Author

Figure 70. BigBelly deployment in Times Square. Created by Author

Public Benefit

Waste management is one of the oldest essential services and solid waste management is projected to be an essential service for many years to come. As noted in the earlier sections, its volume and significance is a growing issue across all geographies. Cities in developed countries are scrambling to keep costs down for solid waste management, while simultaneously taking a leap forward to promote sustainability. BigBelly is able to position itself as a one-stop solution. It saves cost for municipalities while also addressing issues like traffic congestion and air pollution. One should note that municipalities pay BigBelly to use its hardware and services. And, it is likely that BigBelly and its primary value proposition as a smart waste management platform will continue to benefit the public.

With the strong essential service it provides, BigBelly is in a good position to explore other benefits and services. Benefits such as rodent control alone may not be able to justify the high

price of the units, but the units do have clear public benefits that make BigBelly's core value proposition even more attractive. On the other hand, the ancillary services BigBelly is trying to provide by layering uses may not be simply accretive. Accommodating new services often requires capital projects: BigBelly units today are mostly off-the-grid, while providing services like 4G and 5G necessitates connection to power and fiber optic cable. At the same time, the locational characteristics that mobile network operators look for may not perfectly jive with optimal placements of BigBelly units for solid waste management. Connected to power, BigBelly can start a transition from static advertising to more lucrative digital advertising. These changes may challenge public perception of BigBelly as a good old trash can and its public benefit as a whole.

Competition

BigBelly is now a market leader in smart waste management. When the company first started, there was more competition in the space as cleantech was booming. BigBelly managed to fend off competition and found ways to make its product and services more competitive and sticky. Before smart waste management was popularized, trash cans were perceived as simple commodities that needed replacement every couple of years and was considered as a one-time purchase. BigBelly started off by selling its units as one-time sales, but had separate multi-year software license agreements. With CLEAN, BigBelly could maintain positive relationships with customers by providing data analytics and ensure that they benefit from physical and digital technologies its units have to offer. As BigBelly expanded its value proposition and established a track record for innovation, its transition to a subscription model has been received well. BigBelly does not enjoy a natural monopoly, but has managed to find way to limit competition through innovation.

As BigBelly contemplates expansions to wireless communication and digital Out-of-Home advertising spaces, its universe of competition is set to grow. There are other companies and different types of street furniture, such as Link NYC, that are looking to capture a slice of a growing pie. It might be too early to tell which company or street furniture is best positioned to partake in the growth. What is promising for BigBelly is its growing private ownership of the units and expansive, yet granular deployments.

Physical

Physical characteristics of BigBelly can be bifurcated into the individual and the network. As an individual object, BigBelly is largely different from trash cans that we are used to. It is rectangular, protected and neutral in design. These characteristics are helpful for functional reasons as well as for the purpose of advertising. BigBelly units have been able to host static advertising on their surfaces. As a step further, BigBelly and its customers may find the form factor highly adaptable for installing flat screens for digital advertising and hosting other telecommunication devices.

BigBelly units form networks, but their constructs are different from Link NYC. While Link NYC's network is dictated by past payphone locations and power and fiber optic cables locations, BigBelly units enjoy flexibility in placement since they are off-the-grid. Their distributions reflect where foot traffic is and where waste collection can be carried out efficiently. Observing BigBelly’s deployment in Times Square, it is notable how the network takes a web-like configuration with higher density where most tourists visit. These are desirable characteristics for customers who want to provide Wi-Fi, 4G or 5G to high traffic areas matching users' needs.

Digital

BigBelly's initial value proposition was to decrease waste collections by 80%. The first major step towards the accomplishment was to increase capacity by fives times using solar-powered, on-site waste compaction technology. The second major step, and what made BigBelly “smart” and a part of the Internet of Things ecosystem, was using digital technologies to sense fullness of trash cans and wirelessly transmit the information to waste collectors. The innovations in hardware and software came early on and contributed to BigBelly’s early success. While BigBelly continued to invest in digital technologies and improved services like data analytics, the incremental value-adds have not been as meaningful as the initial breakthrough.

Social

We may not remember makers of trash cans, but disastrous moments like units overflowing and covered in "garish" advertising become deeply ingrained our minds (Fig 71, 72). It is common for users to form negative views of bad products, and BigBelly’s main concern is its lack of control over its reputation. In the early days of BigBelly, units were sold exclusively as one-time sales with software licenses. Once the units left BigBelly's hands, the company lost sight and control over them: how they were cared for and managed. BigBelly found that some clients utilized units’ physical and digital functions to their design capacity, whereas some stopped using CLEAN and as a result, the units turned into expensive metal trash cans (Rogers 2017). BigBelly could not force customers to use its advanced technologies as customers might not have had the in-house expertise or desire to use them. Media coverage around poorly managed BigBelly units portrayed the company as a part of the problem, exposing BigBelly to reputation risk without any tangible remedy. Only when BigBelly started to make the transition to a subscription model could it have control over its destiny.

BigBelly is primarily an example of how we can think creatively to layer uses onto an existing infrastructure. Opening up opportunities to do meaningful value-adds on brownfield projects responds to immediacy of the problem noted in Chapter 1 and expands the universe of technology-enabled infrastructure. Layering uses and increasing utilization represent growth strategies one can consider employing throughout the lifespan of an infrastructure. It may be hard to plan ahead or underwrite those opportunities from the start. However, the case of BigBelly shows that a company can make meaningful progress to better position itself for the next chapter.

Figure 71. “Hideous” advertising on BigBelly. Reprinted from “Trashy ads? Philly approves large ads on 375 garbage cans”, 2018, inquirer.com

Figure 72. Overflowing BigBelly. Reprinted from “Bad UI is trash”, 2019, medium.com

Chapter 5: Conclusions

In this Chapter, I share five main findings and implications from my research. The first two findings pertain to lessons learned from the cases through application of the conceptual framework. My third conclusion is more of an implication, as it extends the geography of technology-enabled infrastructure outside New York City. Similarly, the fourth conclusion suggests a closer collaboration between private and public actors. The last finding offers some context for where technology-enabled infrastructure stands and where the next steps should be.

First, we need to see the lifespan of infrastructure in a different light. Infrastructure is no longer a sleepy asset where we do not pay much attention after construction is complete. The growing problem we are facing in the midst of a transition from analog to digital is outpacing how we traditionally approach infrastructure, as noted in Chapter 1. In order to match the need and adapt to the fast-changing environment powered by the digital, we need to rethink how we invest in infrastructure and find ways to bring innovation throughout its lifespan. I start by recognizing that the concept of essential service is often a transient one. As evidenced in the case of payphones, what we consider as essential today may turn out to be obsolete not long after. Broadening the definition of essential services and digitally-driven changes in demand may further complicate our understanding of the time horizon associated with any infrastructure. I find that creating and retaining an ability to innovate throughout the lifespan of an infrastructure is a key ingredient for technology-enabled infrastructure. An infrastructure can maintain and/or expand on the essential service it provides and explore other revenue generating opportunities. An infrastructure can derive such ability by leveraging physical and digital characteristics while enjoying a less competitive environment.

Concerning the end of the lifespan of a technology-enabled infrastructure, we need to understand it is an opportunistic situation. We are not used to the concept of infrastructure that requires more operational expertise and value-added thinking. However much we plan ahead and carefully lay out attributes we consider at the time best for future innovations, there will be technological obsolescence. At some point, we will have to take a step back and think about whether technology-enabled infrastructure is a sustainable action or an action trying to cover an excessive behavior. Do we really need a 2-hour delivery? Can we afford to have our impulses, impatience

and desire for instant gratification dictate how we shop online so much so that we get multiple packages from the same platform in the same week? In the short term, the answer appears to be yes. But technological obsolescence as well as stress on existing infrastructure can be mitigated if we consider the possibility for demand side regulation and progressive taxation.

Second, the three strategies identified in Chapter 2 -creating new assets, layering uses and increasing utilization- should be considered holistically in the field of technology-enabled infrastructure. In my thesis, I present and analyze cases independently to gain clarity and a deeper understanding on each strategy. The strategies are defined and distinguished by action, not by technology or form. However, after a comparative analysis, I find that each of these actions should be a part of the same playbook concerning technology-enabled infrastructure. In the case of Link NYC, while my research focuses on the process of creating and realizing the value of a new asset, it is notable how CityBridge is increasing utilization on its digital advertising campaigns using data and layering uses through Wi-Fi offloading and small cells. In the same vein, BigBelly used to be a poster child for new movements in smart cities and the Internet of Things. A significant part of its core value proposition was created through the process of increasing utilization where the team iterated on different form factors and adapted wireless communication technology (Fig. 73). Understanding the full breadth of actions available at different phases is an integral part of unlocking the full potential of any technology-enabled infrastructure.

Link NYC BigBelly Public Benefit Essential, Broadened Definition Essential, Core Definition Competition Benign Competition Somewhat Competitive Physical Citywide, Nationwide Citywide, BIDs, Campus Connected Unconnected Digital Strong Value-add Opportunity Insignificant Value-add Opportunity Social Privacy Unknown

Figure 73. Comparative analysis. Created by Author

Third, the geography for technology-enabled infrastructure maybe more expansive than traditional infrastructure, but its application is not universal. My thesis focuses on two cases – Link NYC and BigBelly– and their contexts in New York City. Having one city as a common backdrop allows for a focused, in-depth analysis of the assets, public agencies and users they

serve. The decision made for this research method is not meant to overlook their successes outside New York City13 or the ubiquity of technology-enabled infrastructure. After all, I find that there is no clear geographic boundary for technology-enabled infrastructure.

The low earth orbit constellation of satellites that provide internet access to the most remote parts of the world is a new opportunity. Highways with embedded electric charging will find success in the most traveled routes for commercial vehicles. Link NYC and BigBelly are urban infrastructure that both serve and profit from foot traffic. However, the kiosks will not persist in areas of high correlation between high foot traffic and historic landmarks, like many European cities. BigBelly units may not find success in cities where labor costs are too cheap to justify the high cost per unit. While conceptually limitless, the geography of technology-enabled infrastructure should be carefully examined using the variables presented earlier that include qualitative as well as quantitative analysis.

Fourth, collaboration between private and public actors matters for technology-enabled infrastructure. The challenges posed by changing customer behavior and broadening essential services can be addressed when we leverage private expertise in digital media and the scale of the economy. It can also be a meaningful process for sharing excess value created by new technologies in the light of cities’ struggle to understand, regulate and tax new businesses like Uber and Airbnb. In the cases of Link NYC and BigBelly, the collaborations between the private companies and public agencies brought positive outcomes. Public agencies came up with an idea or an opportunity, provided some protections for growth, and the private companies delivered essential services to their constituents. In order to promote collaboration between private and public, both parties should be on the same page understanding the dynamism of technology- enabled infrastructure, have patience to take a long view while showing flexibility in realigning interests as needed. Public agencies can take proactive measures in communicating and engaging businesses having unilateral impact on infrastructure while considering more broad-based policies like congestion pricing. Lastly, collaboration between private and public should be an avenue for public engagement where public agencies can lead education and conversations around new technologies and address concerns from users.

13 BigBelly’s 60,000 or more units are located in more than 50 countries. Intersection, a company behind Link NYC, now has links in Philadelphia and United Kingdom.

Finally, technology-enabled infrastructure is not a silver bullet to all the problems around infrastructure today. It is rather an attempt to marry modern technology with age-old approaches to infrastructure to help sustain and expand our contemporary standard of living in a more equitable and environmentally responsible way. It may be too early to make a judgement on its value to our society, and there are some topics I came across during the research that I wish to investigate in the future. Link NYC and BigBelly represent assets that were developed in close collaboration with public agencies and they are reasonably in check. And, in so do creating new assets and layering uses as strategies as they would generally require permitting and approval processes. On the other hand, increasing utilization may go unnoticed and be taking a toll on our existing infrastructure without much visibility or accountability. A study of increasing utilization as an isolate topic can be a meaningful next step. Technology-enabled infrastructure is unique in that it actively uses digital technology. Understanding data and privacy issues of technology- enabled infrastructure seems to be another pertinent topic that can further incorporate user’s view into the big picture.

5.1 Epilogue

On March 17, 2020, I defended my thesis, virtually. It was the first virtual thesis defense for the Department of Architecture and the Center for Real Estate at MIT, and it probably won't be the last. Six days before, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) a pandemic. As I stood up in front of a camera and scrolled through the familiar faces on my screen, I couldn't help but notice anxiety in the air. While I was blessed with the generous support from a small community of friends, family and advisors, our society is bracing for one of the biggest challenges of our times. Restaurant restrictions went into place on the day of my defense in Massachusetts, Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York ordered all non-essential businesses to close from March 22 and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a nationwide, "total ban" on leaving home for three weeks starting March 24.

These phenomenon and measures constitute our efforts for "social distancing"14, a widely accepted practice to help stop or slow down the spread of the disease. So, what does it mean to our lives? We should primarily "stay at home" or "shelter in place"15 to minimize close contacts with others unless we work in a critical infrastructure industry16 or need to go out to address essential needs17. It is undoubtedly a major change in our lives. The change came abruptly and its longevity remains in question to make us feel like it might not be something temporal. As a consequence, it has tipped the scale in the transition from analog to digital described in this thesis.

Education and work moved online. Social interactions are almost wholly mediated and facilitated by digital technologies. E-commerce is picking up the slack, filling the gap in the absence of brick and mortar retail. Our behavior had to change overnight, but so did operations of our “essential critical infrastructure”. Online platforms18 are struggling to handle the surge in internet

14 Social distancing is a terminology we adopted early on, but some call it misguiding and prefer to use "physical distancing." (Gale 2020) 15 As of March 31, 2020, White House or Center for Disease Control and Prevention does not explicitly define "social distancing." State, local, tribal and territorial governments are responsible for designing and implementing orders like "stay at home" or "shelter in place." (The White House 2020) 16 Department of Homeland Security developed an "Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce" advisory list. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2020) 17 State, local, tribal and territorial governments define essential needs differently, but commonly include activities like going to the grocery store or pharmacy. (Massachusetts Department of Public Health 2020) 18 Online platforms like marketplaces, search engines, social media and more. (OECD n.d.)

91 traffic (Kang 2020). Restaurants, even the ones who would have never considered food delivery as an option, are opting to get on the food delivery platforms (Fig. 74). Amazon is prioritizing delivering essential items and looking to hire 100,000 new workers to keep up with customer demand (Rey 2020). The transition hasn’t been a perfect or an equitable one, but I am appreciative and amazed by the resilience our digital and physical infrastructure has shown in a time of crisis.

Figure 74. A Michelin-starred Italian-American restaurant coming online. Reprinted from “New Yorkers Are Overcrowding Carbone’s Sidewalk, Forcing Police Action”, 2020, ny.eater.com

“This too shall pass.” It will, but the virus itself is likely to come back seasonally or as a different type at a later time (Sandler 2020). While we hope for fundamental solutions like vaccines or medical treatments to be ready by then, we cannot be so sure, and the last thing we would want is another large-scale social distancing. Early findings suggest that strong surveillance and containment measures, as evidenced in Singapore, can be useful for detection and containment at the start of local outbreaks (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2020). In South Korea, smartphone location data and CCTV video were used to facilitate contact tracing and transparent disclosure of relevant information (Kharpal 2020). While we look for creative solutions and granularity in response, technology-enabled infrastructure can offer local level data collection and dissemination of information.

Viruses will come and go, but the changes and disruptions COVID-19 bring to our lives and economy will have lasting impact. Today, we are all pushed to dwell in the digital world as customers and businesses alike. Our unanticipated adoption of digital platforms and services is likely to outlive the pandemic, and businesses that are best positioned to adapt to the new landscape will prevail. However, many will likely suffer and some will not survive. After this is over, we might still prefer to order food delivery and forget the days of dine-ins. But, that decision may be reinforced by a lack of the same dine-in options as pre-crisis. Like this example, there are many uncertainties that lie ahead, especially in estimating the demand for infrastructure post-crisis. Only time will tell if there will be fundamental changes to our lifestyles, so much so that we will have to rethink our long-term infrastructure investments. In the meantime, we should investigate ways we can actively add digital and physical technologies onto existing and new infrastructure to increase utilization, layer uses, and give the flexibility and resilience our infrastructure needs to meet the demands in the short and medium term.

Sources

Bibliography

“03.16.20_coronavirus-Guidance_8.5x11_315PM.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus- guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf. “3rd Place - November 1, 2004.” n.d. Accessed February 10, 2020. https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2004/11/01/8190961/index.htm. “12 Things New Yorkers Should Know About Their Garbage.” 2014. Citizens Budget Commission of New York. May 21, 2014. https://cbcny.org/research/12-things-new-yorkers-should-know-about- their-garbage. “2015 Broadband Progress Report.” 2015. Federal Communications Commission. February 4, 2015. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015-broadband- progress-report. “2019-09-24-Ltr-Stephen-Diamond-Waterfront_toronto-Residewalk-Proposal.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 26, 2020. https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-09-24-ltr-stephen- diamond-waterfront_toronto-residewalk-proposal.pdf. “Amazon Prime Delivery Delays Are Now as Long as a Month - Vox.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/22/21190372/amazon-prime-delivery-delays-april-21- coronavirus-covid-19. “America’s Infrastructure Report Card 2017 | GPA: D+.” n.d. Accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/. “As States Add Money to Fix Roads, U.S. Is Urged to Ante Up - The New York Times.” n.d. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/business/us-road-infrastructure.html. “Bad UI Is Trash - Jennifer Joung - Medium.” n.d. Accessed March 12, 2020. https://medium.com/@jenniferjoung/bad-ui-is-trash-38b5f10cdd98. Bank, The World. 2013. “Infrastructure Services : The Building Blocks of Development.” 75916. The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/724741468326390519/Infrastructure- services-the-building-blocks-of-development. BBC News. 2017. “BT to Scrap 20,000 Unused Telephone Boxes,” August 15, 2017, sec. Business. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40934210. “BIDs - SBS.” n.d. Accessed March 2, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sbs/neighborhoods/bids.page. Bigbelly. n.d. “Squeezing Dollars out of Trash.” Accessed February 10, 2020. http://blog.bigbelly.com/babson-magazine. “Bigbelly World Leading Smart Waste & Recycling System.” n.d. Bigbelly (blog). Accessed March 2, 2020. https://bigbelly.com/platform/. “Bigbellyreport_7-12-10.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed March 2, 2020. https://archive.epa.gov/international/jius/web/pdf/bigbellyreport_7-12-10.pdf. Brown, Eliot. 2020. “The Ride-Hail Utopia That Got Stuck in Traffic.” Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2020, sec. Tech. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ride-hail-utopia-that-got-stuck-in-traffic- 11581742802. Calder, Rich. 2018. “NYC’s Free Public Wi-Fi Kiosks Aren’t Making Much Money.” New York Post (blog). May 1, 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/05/01/nycs-free-public-wi-fi-kiosks-arent-making- enough-money/. “Calling Back the Pay Phone.” 2012. Crain’s New York Business. November 17, 2012. https://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20121118/TECHNOLOGY/311189976/calling-back-the- pay-phone.

Camp, Garrett. 2019. “The Beginning of Uber.” Medium. April 18, 2019. https://medium.com/@gc/the- beginning-of-uber-7fb17e544851. Campbell, Harry. n.d. “Is It Rideshare, Ride-Hail or Something Else?” Forbes. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrycampbell/2015/06/30/is-it-rideshare-ride-hail-or- something-else/. Cassano, Jay, and Jay Cassano. 2014. “Inside NYC’s Bold Plan To Turn Payphones Into Wi-Fi Hotspots.” Fast Company. August 1, 2014. https://www.fastcompany.com/3033911/inside-nycs- bold-plan-to-turn-payphones-into-wi-fi-hotspots. “Census - Table Results.” n.d. Accessed February 16, 2020. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205- Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles&table=DP04&tid=ACSDP5Y2017.DP04&y=2017&hid ePreview=true. “Census and The City: Overcoming NYC’s Digital Divide.” n.d., 24. Claerhout, Andrew, Tawfik Hammoud, Michael Brigl, and Jared Haddon. n.d. “Infrastructure’s Future Looks a Lot Like Private Equity,” 5. “Cloaca Maxima | Ancient Structure, Rome, Italy.” n.d. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cloaca-Maxima. “Coronavirus: Israel, China, Singapore Use Surveillance Tech to Track Covid-19.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/coronavirus-surveillance-used-by-governments-to- fight-pandemic-privacy-concerns.html. Correal, Annie. 2019. “Just a Quarter of New York’s Wi-Fi Kiosks Are Up. Guess Where.” The New York Times, December 6, 2019, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/nyregion/linknyc-wifi-connections.html. “De Blasio Administration and CityBridge Announce LinkNYC Has Reached One Million Users.” 2017. The Official Website of the City of New York. January 18, 2017. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of- the-mayor/news/031-17/de-blasio-administration-citybridge-linknyc-has-reached-one-million- users-less-than. “De Blasio Administration Announces $32 Million Neighborhood Rat Reduction Plan.” 2017. The Official Website of the City of New York. July 12, 2017. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the- mayor/news/472-17/de-blasio-administration-32-million-neighborhood-rat-reduction-plan. “De Blasio Administration Releases Internet Master Plan For City’s Broadband Future.” 2020. The Official Website of the City of New York. January 7, 2020. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the- mayor/news/010-20/de-blasio-administration-releases-internet-master-plan-city-s-broadband- future. “De Blasio Administration Releases Internet Master Plan For City’s Broadband Future | City of New York.” n.d. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/010-20/de- blasio-administration-releases-internet-master-plan-city-s-broadband-future. DeCambre, Mark. 2013. “NYC Pay Phones Aren’t Dead yet.” New York Post (blog). November 1, 2013. https://nypost.com/2013/10/31/nyc-pay-phones-arent-dead-yet/. “Definition of INFRASTRUCTURE.” n.d. Accessed February 29, 2020. https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/infrastructure. devindra. n.d. “LinkNYC’s Free Gigabit WiFi Is Here, and It Is Glorious.” Engadget. Accessed January 31, 2020. https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/19/linknyc-gigabit-wifi-hands-on/. “DOC-354323A1.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 354323A1.pdf. “Downtown Streets Sprout Big New Crop of Recycling Bins | Tribeca Trib Online.” n.d. Accessed March 2, 2020. http://tribecatrib.com/content/downtown-streets-sprout-big-new-crop-recycling-bins. “DPH Public Health Advisory: Stay-at-Home Advisory for Individuals over 70 and for Those with Underlying Health Conditions; and Safe Practices for the General Public | Mass.Gov.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/news/dph-public-health-advisory-stay-at-home- advisory-for-individuals-over-70-and-for-those-with.

“Dublin to Test ‘neutral’ 5G Network.” n.d. Accessed February 8, 2020. https://cities-today.com/dublin- to-trial-neutral-5g-network/. Easterling, Keller. n.d. “THE ACTION IS THE FORM,” 3. “Ec_current.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf. “Electric Roads Could Be a Path to a Driverless Future - The New York Times.” n.d. Accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/business/energy-environment/electric-roads-cars- israel-sweden.html. Erhardt, Gregory D., Sneha Roy, Drew Cooper, Bhargava Sana, Mei Chen, and Joe Castiglione. 2019. “Do Transportation Network Companies Decrease or Increase Congestion?” Science Advances 5 (5): eaau2670. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2670. “Ericsson Mobility Report November 2017.” n.d., 36. “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Surveillance and Containment Measures for the First 100 Patients with COVID-19 in Singapore — January 2–February 29, 2020 | MMWR.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6911e1.htm. “Everything You Need to Know about Out-of-Home Advertising.” n.d. Broadsign. Accessed March 9, 2020. https://broadsign.com//blog/out-of-home-advertising/. Flegenheimer, Matt. 2014. “Pay Phones in New York City Will Become Free Wi-Fi Hot Spots.” The New York Times, November 17, 2014, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/nyregion/pay-phones-in-new-york-city-will-become-free- wi-fi-hot-spots.html. Goldfarb, Avi, Catherine Tucker, and publisher National Bureau of Economic Research. 2017. “Digital Economics.” EBook. Digital Economics / Avi Goldfarb, Catherine Tucker. 2017. https://lib.mit.edu/record/cat00916a/mit.002597820. Gonsalvez, Venkat Sumantran, Charles Fine, and David. n.d. “Going Mobile: The Personalized, On- Demand Future of Urban Transportation.” MIT Sloan Management Review. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/going-mobile-the-personalized-on-demand-future- of-urban-transportation/. Goodman, J. David. 2019. “Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Headquarters.” The New York Times, February 14, 2019, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyregion/amazon-hq2-queens.html. “Guidance On Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs - Policy and Guidance - Real Estate - FHWA.” n.d. Accessed March 9, 2020. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/policy_guidance/offprmsgsnguid.cfm. “Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce | CISA.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.cisa.gov/publication/guidance-essential-critical-infrastructure-workforce. Haag, Matthew, and Winnie Hu. 2019. “1.5 Million Packages a Day: The Internet Brings Chaos to N.Y. Streets.” The New York Times, October 27, 2019, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/nyregion/nyc-amazon-delivery.html. Honan, Katie. 2019. “New York City Council to Vote on Overhaul for Commercial-Waste Collection.” Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2019, sec. US. https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city- council-to-vote-on-overhaul-for-commercial-waste-collection-11569780986. Inc, Bigbelly. n.d. “NYC Times Square Efficiently Manages 26,056 Gallons of Waste Each Day with Bigbelly.” Accessed March 2, 2020. http://info.bigbelly.com/case-study/times-square-new-york- city. Inderst, Georg. 2010. “Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure: What Have We Learnt?” Pensions: An International Journal 15 (2): 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1057/pm.2010.4. “Infographic: The History of Digital Out of Home.” 2018. Out of Home Media Blog | EMC Outdoor (blog). August 10, 2018. https://www.emcoutdoor.com/blog/2018/08/infographic-history-digital- out-of-home/.

“Insights to Go from Facebook IQ.” n.d. Facebook IQ. Accessed March 7, 2020. https://www.facebook.com/iq/insights-to-go/6m-there-are-more-than-6-million-active- advertisers-on-facebook. “Internet Inequality: Broadband Access in NYC.” n.d. Office of the New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. Accessed February 22, 2020. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/internet-inequality- broadband-access-in-nyc/. Intersection. n.d. “LinkNYC.” LinkNYC. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://www.link.nyc. “Intersection Completes $150 Million Equity Raise to Power Smart Cities Vision.” 2017. November 7, 2017. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171107006229/en/Intersection-Completes- 150-Million-Equity-Raise-Power. “Interstate Highway System - The Myths - 50th Anniversary - Interstate System - Highway History - Federal Highway Administration.” n.d. Accessed February 6, 2020. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.cfm#question5. “Is ’physical Distancing Better than ‘Social Distancing’? - The Washington Post.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/social-distancing-coronavirus- physical-distancing/2020/03/25/a4d4b8bc-6ecf-11ea-aa80-c2470c6b2034_story.html. January 17, Adam Mann, and 2020. n.d. “Starlink: SpaceX’s Satellite Internet Project.” Space.Com. Accessed February 23, 2020. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html. Johnson, Hon Corey, and Hon Antonio Reynoso. n.d. “THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,” 40. Jones, News Analysis Dan, and Mobile Editor 1/15/2020. n.d. “NYC OKs 9 Providers to Expand 5G Coverage.” Light Reading. Accessed February 23, 2020. https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/nyc-oks-9-providers-to-expand-5g-coverage-/d/d- id/756858. Kang, Cecilia. 2016. “Tech Companies Expect Free High-Speed Internet for Poorer Americans to Pay Off Later.” The New York Times, October 11, 2016, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/technology/free-broadband-initiatives-for-poor-and-rural- areas-with-eye-on-future.html. Lapowsky, Issie. 2015. “Google’s Next Moonshot: Lining City Streets With Wi-Fi Hubs.” Wired, June 23, 2015. https://www.wired.com/2015/06/google-next-moonshot-wifi-hubs-sidewalk-labs/. Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope : Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. https://lib.mit.edu/record/cat00916a/mit.000880944. Lindzon, Jared, Jared Lindzon, and Jared Lindzon. 2019. “How Toronto Locals Soured on Alphabet’s Neighborhood of the Future.” Fast Company. September 6, 2019. https://www.fastcompany.com/90390377/alphabet-wants-to-turn-toronto-into-a-digital-city- locals-arent-so-sure. LinkNYC. 2019. “The #LinkNYCfacts Trends That Defined 2018.” Medium. August 13, 2019. https://medium.com/@LinkNYC/the-linknycfacts-trends-that-defined-2018-69976695f415. “LinkNYC’s 5 Million Users Make 500,000 Phone Calls Each Month.” 2018. VentureBeat (blog). September 29, 2018. https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/29/linknycs-gigabit-kiosks-hit-1-billion- sessions-and-5-million-users/. Louis, Garrick E. 2004. “A Historical Context of Municipal Solid Waste Management in the United States.” Waste Management & Research 22 (4): 306–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X04045425. Lyons, Kim. 2020. “The Consortium behind LinkNYC Kiosks Is ‘Delinquent’ and Owes the City Millions.” The Verge. March 5, 2020. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/5/21166057/linknyc- wifi-free-kiosk-google-new-york-sidewalk-labs-payments-revenue. “Map: Where Are the Trashiest New Yorkers?” 2014. State of the Planet (blog). February 6, 2014. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/02/06/map-where-are-the-trashiest-new-yorkers/.

“Mayor Bloomberg Launches NYC Urban Technology Innovation Center.” 2011. The Official Website of the City of New York. January 20, 2011. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/022- 11/mayor-bloomberg-launches-nyc-urban-technology-innovation-center. “Mayor Bloomberg Launches Times Square Public Space Recycling Pilot to Make Managing Waste More Efficient.” 2013. The Official Website of the City of New York. March 15, 2013. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/097-13/mayor-bloomberg-launches-times-square- public-space-recycling-pilot-make-managing-waste-more. McGeehan, Patrick. 2016. “Free Wi-Fi Kiosks Were to Aid New Yorkers. An Unsavory Side Has Spurred a Retreat.” The New York Times, September 14, 2016, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/nyregion/internet-browsers-to-be-disabled-on-new-yorks- free-wi-fi-kiosks.html. “MTA | Press Release | MTA Headquarters | MTA Awards Advertising Contract to OUTFRONT Media for Installation of Digital Screens.” n.d. Accessed March 5, 2020. http://www.mta.info/press- release/mta-headquarters/mta-awards-advertising-contract-outfront-media-installation-digital. “Need Help? Aunt Bertha Helps People in Need Find Social Services in Their Area.” 2014. TED Blog (blog). August 29, 2014. https://blog.ted.com/need-help-ask-aunt-bertha-erine-gray-helps-people- in-need-find-social-services-in-their-area/. “New York City Council, LinkNYC, DoITT Launch Participatory Budgeting on Link Kiosks.” n.d. Accessed January 31, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doitt/about/press-releases/participatory- budgeting-on-link-kiosks-2019.page. “New York City Issues Request for Proposals to Build Citywide Wi-Fi Network and State-of-the-Art.” 2014. The Official Website of the City of New York. May 1, 2014. http://www1.nyc.gov/office- of-the-mayor/news/193-14/new-york-city-issues-request-proposals-build-citywide-wi-fi-network- state-of-the-art. “New York City to Offer Free Wireless Internet Access at Payphones.” n.d. TechPresident. Accessed January 30, 2020. http://techpresident.com/news/22549/new-york-city-offering-free-wi-fi- through-pay-phones. “New York Is Using Data to Direct Its Fight against Rats.” 2017. August 3, 2017. https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/new-york-using-data-direct-fight-rats. “New Yorkers Express Concern About Homeless At LinkNYC Kiosks.” 2018. October 10, 2018. https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/10/10/linknyc-charging-wi-fi-kiosk-homeless-manhattan/. “November-2019-Citi-Bike-Monthly-Report.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed April 1, 2020. https://d21xlh2maitm24.cloudfront.net/nyc/November-2019-Citi-Bike-Monthly- Report.pdf?mtime=20191215143007. “NYC DOT, Alta and Citi Announce Agreement to Expand and Enhance Citi Bike Program in New York City.” n.d. Accessed April 1, 2020. https://www.citigroup.com/citi/news/2014/141028b.htm. “OECD ILibrary | What Is an ‘Online Platform’?” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/an-introduction-to-online-platforms-and-their-role-in-the- digital-transformation_19e6a0f0-en. “Out of Home Advertising Continues Strong Growth, Up 7% in Q3 2019.” n.d. Accessed March 9, 2020. https://oaaa.org/StayConnected/PressReleases/tabid/327/id/5854/Default.aspx. “Philadelphia Streets:” n.d. Accessed March 2, 2020a. https://www.philadelphiastreets.com/sanitation/the-bigbelly-program/what-it-is. “Philadelphia Streets:” ———. n.d. Accessed March 2, 2020b. https://www.philadelphiastreets.com/sanitation/the-bigbelly-program/litter-critter-big-bellies. “PitchBook Profile - JMC Capital Partners.” n.d. Accessed March 9, 2020. https://my-pitchbook- com.libproxy.mit.edu/profile/12019-15/investor/profile. “PitchBook Profile - LinkNYC.” n.d. Accessed March 9, 2020. https://my-pitchbook- com.libproxy.mit.edu/profile/101750-05/company/profile#deal-history/58696-30T.

Poon, Linda. n.d. “Next Time You Want Free Wi-Fi in NYC, Look For A Trash Can.” CityLab. Accessed March 2, 2020. http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2015/07/new-york-city-wi-fi-trash- cans/398258/. Prabhu, Nagabhushana. 2013. Design and Construction of an RFID-Enabled Infrastructure : The Next Avatar of the Internet. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15588. “Press Release - DoITT.” n.d. Accessed January 30, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doitt/about/pr- 120711.page. Reizman, Renée. 2017. “What Killed the Pay Phone?” The Atlantic. February 2, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/object-lesson-phone-booth/515385/. “Renewable Energy Explained - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” n.d. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/. Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. 2017. “Renewable Energy.” Our World in Data, December. https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy. “S-1.” n.d. Accessed February 16, 2020. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519103850/d647752ds1.htm. Schlagwein, Daniel, Detlef Schoder, and Kai Spindeldreher. n.d. “Consolidated, Systemic Conceptualization, and Definition of the ‘Sharing Economy.’” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology n/a (n/a). Accessed February 16, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24300. “Seahorse Power Company Raises $1.1 Million in Angel and Venture Funding to Meet Manufacturing and Sales Demand for the BigBelly(TM) Solar Powered Trash Compactor.” 2005. November 14, 2005. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20051114006081/en/Seahorse-Power- Company-raises-1.1-million-angel. “Sec1_17.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_17.pdf. Shahrigian, Shant. 2018. “Costly Path-to-Citizenship Program Comes under Fire.” New York Post (blog). October 14, 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/10/13/costly-path-to-citizenship-program-comes- under-fire/. Shor, Stanley. n.d. “RESPONSES MAY BE SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORM BY SUBMITTING FOUR COPIES OF YOUR COMMENTS TO:,” 10. “Solar Trash Compactor Firm BigBelly Raises $3.2M.” n.d. Boston Business Journal. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2009/05/solar-trash- compactor-firm-bigbelly-raises.html. Stout, Hilary. 2013. “In War for Same-Day Delivery, Racing Madly to Go Last Mile.” The New York Times, November 23, 2013, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/technology/in-war-for-same-day-delivery-racing-madly-to- go-last-mile.html. Stremple, Paul. 2018. “LinkNYC Boosts Local Businesses With Free Advertising.” BKLYNER (blog). January 26, 2018. https://bklyner.com/linknyc-boosts-local-businesses-with-free-advertising/. “Support for Sidewalk Toronto Mixed.” n.d. The Forum PollTM. Accessed February 13, 2020. http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/3002/sidewalk-toronto-july-2019/. “Surging Traffic Is Slowing Down Our Internet - The New York Times.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/coronavirus-internet-traffic-speed.html. “SZ19_055AL.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed January 31, 2020. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp- content/uploads/documents/SZ19_055AL.pdf. “TFGWM_Report_GWM_LR.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Task_Forces/TFGWM_Report_GWM_LR.pdf. “The Coronavirus Will Return In The Fall, Fauci Predicts, But The U.S. Will Be Better Prepared.” n.d. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/03/30/the- coronavirus-will-return-in-the-fall-fauci-predicts-but-the-us-will-be-better- prepared/#5273ad74e39b.

“The Dark Side of the Sharing Economy.” n.d. World Economic Forum. Accessed February 16, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/the-dark-side-of-the-sharing-economy/. “The Downtown Alliance Expands Innovative Solar-Powered Trash Collection by Adding Recycling to Successful High-Tech Waste Collection System | Downtown Alliance.” n.d. Accessed March 2, 2020. https://www.downtownny.com/press-releases/the-downtown-alliance-expands-innovative- solar-powered-trash-collection-by-adding. “The Economic Case for Bringing Broadband to the Rural US.” n.d. Https://Www.Bcg.Com. Accessed February 23, 2020. https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2018/economic-case-bringing- broadband-rural-united-states.aspx. “The Plan to Turn NYC’s Old Payphones Into Free Gigabit Wi-Fi Hot Spots.” n.d. Gizmodo. Accessed January 30, 2020. https://gizmodo.com/the-plan-to-turn-old-payphones-into-free-gigabit-wi-fi- 1659688867. “The Road to 5G: The Inevitable Growth of Infrastructure Cost | McKinsey.” n.d. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our- insights/the-road-to-5g-the-inevitable-growth-of-infrastructure-cost. “Towards-Efficient-Benchmarks-for-Infrastructure-Equity-Investments.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 29, 2020. https://edhec.infrastructure.institute/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Towards-Efficient- Benchmarks-for-Infrastructure-Equity-Investments.pdf. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform.” n.d. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. “Trends in Solid Waste Management.” n.d. Accessed February 9, 2020. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html. “UAE Installs Solar Powered Trash Cans That Provide Free WiFi.” n.d. Global Citizen. Accessed March 2, 2020. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/smart-trash-cans-wifi-uae-big-belly/. “Uber Wants To Offer A Low Cost Option In All Of Its Markets.” n.d. TechCrunch (blog). Accessed February 16, 2020. http://social.techcrunch.com/2012/09/07/uber-wants-to-offer-a-low-cost- option-in-all-of-its-markets/. United Nations, ed. 2000. Handbook on Geographic Information Systems and Digital Mapping. Studies in Methods, no. 79. New York: United Nations. “Unlocking Value from Public Assets - 10 Best Practices.” 2017. HR&A. July 6, 2017. https://www.hraadvisors.com/unlocking-value-public-assets/. “U.S. Electricity Generation from Renewables Surpassed Coal in April - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” n.d. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39992. “U.S. Energy Facts Explained - Consumption and Production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” n.d. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/. “Us-2020-Renewable-Energy-Industry-Outlook.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/energy-resources/us-2020- renewable-energy-industry-outlook.pdf. Voytko, Lisette. n.d. “Payphone-Replacing LinkNYC Kiosks Not Generating Projected Revenue.” Gotham Gazette. Accessed February 13, 2020. https://www.gothamgazette.com/city/8502-city-s- much-heralded-link-kiosks-not-generating-projected-revenue. Wakefield, Jane. 2014. “Year in Tech: Most Read of 2014.” BBC News, December 31, 2014, sec. Technology. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30548035. “What Is Programmatic Digital Out-of-Home?” n.d. Broadsign. Accessed April 2, 2020. https://broadsign.com//blog/what-is-programmatic-digital-out-of-home/. “Where Was the First Public Telephone Booth?” n.d. Time. Accessed January 29, 2020. https://time.com/4425102/public-telephone-booth-history/.

100

“Why Are Bigbelly Garbage Cans Disconnected Across Downtown? – NBC Chicago.” n.d. Accessed April 1, 2020. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/why-are-bigbelly-garbage-cans- disconnected-across-downtown/15664/. Wichter, Zach. 2018. “2 Days, 10 Hours, 600 Questions: What Happened When Mark Zuckerberg Went to Washington.” The New York Times, April 12, 2018, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/technology/mark-zuckerberg-testimony.html. Winner, Langdon. 1993. “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 18 (3): 362–78. Young, Monica. 2020. “The New Space Race.” Periodical. Sky & Telescope. 2020. https://lib.mit.edu/record/a9h/140966410.

101